Skip to main content

This quote is found as the very last sentence of Alessandra Stanley's latest "TV Watch" column in the New York Times.  

The full quote is as follows:

Mrs. Clinton was gracious — but ungiving — in her promises to keep the Democratic Party united, even as she promised to keep fighting for the nomination. Mr. Obama, whose remarks in Iowa came off as a dress rehearsal for a convention speech, tried to make amends to hard-core Clinton supporters at the same time.

"No matter how this primary ends," he said, "Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age."

That serenity is not yet shared by women who identify with Mrs. Clinton. Whoopi Goldberg asked her co-hosts on "The View" how they would describe Mrs. Clinton’s historic battle for the Democratic nomination.

"A man took it away from a woman," Joy Behar replied. "Then they yelled at her for complaining about it."

Here is video of the segment.

That quote from Joy Behar, whom I normally enjoy whenever I see clips of "The View," reveals a stunning sense of entitlement and elitism, and yes, sexism, on the part of Joy Behar specifically, and Clinton supporters generally.  

Update [2008-5-21 12:1:7 by Delaware Dem]:: Many commenters have pointed out that Joy Behar was not voicing her own opinion in that quote, and indeed she is an Obama supporter.  Instead she was asked to comment on how the primary will be perceived and the quote is her response.   Fair enough.  This diary is not an attack on Joy Behar, it is an attack on the perception she offers.

First, nothing has been taken away from Hillary Clinton.  She never possessed the nomination for it to be taken away from her.  Yes, she was at one time considered "inevitable" and the frontrunner for the nomination, but that was before any votes were cast.  Once the contest began, she fell behind quickly, finishing third in Iowa.  Sure, she bounced back, and has waged a hell of a fight for the nomination, winning some states in blowouts and others narrowly, and losing some states in blowouts and others narrowly.  But since early February, Barack Obama has held the lead in popular vote and pledged votes, and he has never relinquished it.  He has won the most states.   He has won the most pledged delegates.  He leads in superdelegates that have committed.  He leads in popular votes cast if you include all the states fairly (You can't include Michigan since he was not on the ballot).  

Yet, some women who are Clinton supporters do feel this way.  They feel that something has been taken from them.   And I understand the disappointment that comes from seeing your canidate, whom you believed in and really really wanted to win, lose the nomination.   But you can't say that anything was taken away from Hillary, for that implies that the nomination was hers to begin with.  Despite the "inevitability" crap, the nomination was never Hillary's to begin with.  She had to compete to earn it.  And she failed in that competition, and someone else won.  

Second, Barack Obama was right last night when he said that Hillary Clinton had shattered myths and broken barriers for all daughters everywhere going forward.  For she has generally been treated as any male candidate would be treated.   It was never really assumed that Hillary Clinton could not be President because she was a woman.  It was never assumed that Hillary would be at a disadvantage in the campaign or in the Presidency because she was a woman.  Indeed, as Doris Kearns Goodwin says, being a woman has benefited her campaign, not harmed it.  Hillary Clinton's campaign, while unsuccessful, is yet another giant step forward for women on the march to equality.

Therefore, when someone says that "a man took [the nomination] away from a woman," you demean the person who had something taken away as having lost only because she was a woman.  And you criminalize the person who won as only having won because he was a man.  The goal of equality, of the civil rights movement, and of feminism is to have no one judge you simply on the basis of your skin color or your gender.   Thus, we should not be looking at Barack Obama as an African American or a man, or Hillary Clinton as a woman.  Instead, if we truly wanted to be equals, if we truly valued the goals of the civil rights movement and of feminism, we should be looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as just human beings.   Barack Obama is a human being.  Hillary Clinton is a human being.  And we should not be relegating either to the niche of "men" or "women" or "white" or "black."  

A man did not take anything anyway from a woman.  

Barack Obama just won the nomination over Hillary Clinton.

Equality means that everyone is judged on their merits and their character rather than genetics.  Equality does not entitle anyone to anything, except opportunity.  So just because a woman finally ran for President and was a serious contender for the job, does not mean she should have won that job.  Indeed, if you demand that Hillary Clinton be the nominee simply because she is a woman, you are acting sexist yourself, for you are demanding that Hillary be judged only as a woman, rather than as a person.

Thus, when Hillary supporters complain that Hillary is not winning the nomination because a man took it away from her, then are demeaning Hillary, and themselves, and they are setting back equality for women a couple of decades.

I hope they are all proud of themselves.

Originally posted to Delaware Dem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:23 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Very well said. (217+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gregonthe28th, Chi, Phoenix Woman, Fran for Dean, Cathy Willey, Subterranean, rhfactor, BigOkie, surfbird007, Psyche, Sherri in TX, billlaurelMD, Veritas78, frsbdg, prfb, marjo, bethcf4p, Heart of the Rockies, jeepdad, BlackGriffen, Alden, highacidity, mkfarkus, juslikagrzly, duck, librarianman, Jesterfox, bustacap, Yomberto, dmsilev, jbalazs, jdmorg, bigmama, mayan, paluxy1945, wordene, IndyScott, elmo, QuestionableSanity, cosette, GN1927, betson08, Neighbor2, applegal, lcrp, Anna Luc, WV Democrat, WisVoter, wolverinethad, historys mysteries, Calisher, olpotosi, 3goldens, tinfoilhat, Ckntfld, LostInTexas, irate, Alice Venturi, ChemBob, boofdah, hws, concerned, lauramp, blue jersey mom, Isara, Cyber Kat, CWalter, wiscmass, dazed in pa, Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady, Flippant, ZinZen, chiefsjen, Montco PA Dem, curiousted, jiordan, Cletus from Canuckistan, MsCasey, MntJulp, SharaiP, Debbie in ME, sherlyle, Clytemnestra, HoundDog, Triscula, mystery2me, KozmoD, birdbrain64, global citizen, Bob Sackamento, DJShay, SingerInTheChoir, profh, zhimbo, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, RantNRaven, lynneinfla, revgerry, Statusquomustgo, Granny Doc, orrg1, Foodle, goon 01, pgm 01, DorothyT, Wanda517, Loudoun County Dem, lordcopper, Dartagnan, ricsec7, dallasdave, threegoal, karmsy, Blue Waters Run Deep, Ticonderoga, Seneca Doane, brentmack, rivamer, jedennis, ubertar, tcdup, keenekarl, Larry McAwful, skod, Captain Nimrod, rf7777, wuod kwatch, Neon Mama, Empower Ink, trivium, JoeW, Shane Hensinger, jamiliasf, dotster, shadetree mortician, elwior, roadlion, beltane, Lujane, dagnabbit, luckylizard, Blogvirgin, haruki, tethys, StrangeAnimals, ryangoesboom, tabby, hardtoport, Fifth Generation Leftist, artmartin, cybrestrike, weaponsofmassdeception, Mr Tentacle, MTmarilyn, Texanomaly, writerswrite, gdwtch52, Shhs, DemocraticOz, DFutureIsNow, julibug, zmj, wil5013, OR indie, MingPicket, Fixed Point Theorem, oak510, Kim from Pgh PA, Jazione, funmerlin, snarkyspice, Septima, Into The Stars, marcirish, SnowItch, RadioGirl, eclecticbrotha, diddosMN, Muzikal203, Katie71, reesespcs, Integrity is fundamental, Indieman, 45387, nhDave, Livvy5, Oldengrey, NThenUDie, sly1171, stefanielaine, not this time, Sebastian likes to rattle cages, berkelbees, choochmac, ladygreenslippers, smileycreek, ObamaManiac2008, Alohilani, Runkus, seattlegirl, miss SPED, Commoditize This, SoutheastPapa, smallwhitedog, Russ1985, larryww, princss6, Darqhorse, superheed, Barbara J, CincyKate, Indie Tarheel, fidellio, El Ochito, That Anonymous Guy, kemetcc, Onkel Trygve

    As a man it's disheartening to hear this stuff.  Or Hillary come off as such.

    Just last night driving home w/ my wife she was on the radio giving her victory speech and as she talked about how she has the popular vote, I yelled out "I hate her guts for what she's doing."

    My wife asked why and i explained basically what you're saying here plus the fact that she's made this election all about her.

    Well put.  Recommended.

    "In different circles we keep holding our ground. In different circles we keep spinning round and round and." - Peart

    by Ex Real Republican on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:28:37 AM PDT

    •  Sour losers, and sad that (43+ / 0-)

      they can say this BS on TV and get away with it.

      The sense of entitlement these women feel is just disgusting. This is exactly the kind of BS that reinforces my conviction to call such women on it.

      During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

      by MAORCA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:48:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you... (17+ / 0-)

        As a guy I always feel a like it's some how inappropriate for me to comment.  Since I'm not a woman, I know that I don't get the BS women have to put up with.  Or at least not completely.  Being married, and having many female friends, I've born witness to much of that BS and it drives me nuts, but I know it's different to face it yourself.

        So anyhow, it's always nice to see somebody from Hillary's ordained demographic calling her out.  Reassures me that my dislike of her isn't because of my membership in the white male oppressor class :)

        ---
        Some of my best friends are wrong

        by sterno on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:09:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Will she discard that demographic (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Spoc42, Fixed Point Theorem, princss6

          like she has the rest of us former base comprisers?  You know, like African Americans, male or female?  I still think of Chelsea pleading to a super delegate who had switched to Obama, "but why?" with all the manipulation and entitlement that question implies and am chilled.

          •  I am in her demographic and I like her still.... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChristieKeith, SnowCountry, pedmom

            I think you guys are becoming obsessed with her and over interpreting everything she says and does.  

            The election of delegates is 53-47 people.  Its an election.  People vote.  The votes are counted.  Someone wins and someone loses, hopefully graciously.  

            I feel like I have fallen into some bizarre place where no one remembers peace and prosperity of the Clinton Administration and the open sewer of hatred of Republicans for a smart dedicated hardworking woman. When they come for Michelle Obama I will defend her too, and if she wants to run for office, I will consider voting for her as a smart, well educated person who happened to have married a politician.  Sure Hillary made mistakes- so I didn't vote for her.  But I don't hate her like you all do.  Its just creepy.

            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

            by murrayewv on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please let me know (0+ / 0-)

              when you have felt denigrated and disregarded by her campaign, when it's said that "oh, well, she was going to go for Obama any way" due to x, y, or z.  Unless and until that happens to you, no, I owuldn't you expect to understand why I, one black woman, feels how I do about her.

              But, yeah, thanks for reminding me of the good times and the vast right wing conspiracy [with whom she's now buds but whatever, time passage and stuff].  That certainly makes it a-well okay!

            •  I don't hate her... (0+ / 0-)

              I hate the way she's run this campaign.  I hate how when she got behind she delved into the dark recesses of the Rovian play book.  I understand it on some level though.  This is her one shot, and she really believes she's the best person for the job.  But this is why means to an end mentality never works, because you end up becoming what you hate.

              What's causing people to be angry with her is that insistence on creating an air of uncertainty in the race.  In the end, Obama's going to win, but I always have to qualify that with, "unless the super delegates are morons."  But part of the problem here is that, so long as she's in the race, the Democratic party machinery cannot align to help Obama.  So it's an opportunity cost right now that serves no apparent benefit.

              ---
              Some of my best friends are wrong

              by sterno on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:32:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Hey (8+ / 0-)

        I'm 58 and I'd much prefer to think of us as "middle-age" or "in our prime" rather than being "older."

        Life isn't a battle between good and evil, it's a battle between signal and noise.

        by ChemBob on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:12:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I must ask you -- (7+ / 0-)

          where did you get that tagline?  Did you make it up?  It reminds me of Muriel Rukeyser.

          But anyway, on the topic, I'm infuriated by the disgusting woman-as-victim talk applied to Hillary Clinton, for so many reasons; but one that is important to me is that we can do much better for a first female nominee.  The first woman we nominate should really be a great example of our party, which she is not, due to her tactical bumbling,  racial divisiveness, and lack of vision or foresight in her career, as demonstrated by her support for invading Iraq.
          It's clear that one of the great advantages she's had is her relationship to her husband, a highly popular former president who governed in a time of prosperity and stability.  But personally, as a feminist, I would much rather have a first female nominee who was famous for her own accomplishments, not her husband's.

          •  I would love to see you post this at (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ryangoesboom, gdwtch52

            the pro-Hillary sites.

            "...hope can find its way back to the darkest of corners" -- Barack Obama, May 6, 2008

            by SnowItch on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I made up my tagline. (3+ / 0-)

            I'm a practicing scientist and "signal versus noise" in instrumentation and in understanding the resultant data using statistics, exploratory data analysis, etc., is a very important issue. I believe that much of our public misperception of science and reason is due to excessive, and often deliberately induced, noise drowning out the signal. I admit to not being aware or Muriel Rukeyser.

            Life isn't a battle between good and evil, it's a battle between signal and noise.

            by ChemBob on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ok. If 50 is the new 40 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          is 20 the new 10?

        •  Ah, so it's your plan (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          to live to be 116?  Where are you, the former Soviet Georgia?  Filling up on Dannon?

          •  Why stop at 116? (0+ / 0-)

            After about 7 years of GWB, I felt like I was 116, but now I'm beginning to feel younger again. Hmm, actually I'm eating a Friendly Farms yogurt at the moment, but I'm in Michigan. BTW, I DO NOT want Senator Clinton to get any portion of the vote I would have cast for Senator Obama!

            Life isn't a battle between good and evil, it's a battle between signal and noise.

            by ChemBob on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:58:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Definitely embarrassing and I'm losing it... (29+ / 0-)

        Clinton has run an incompetent campaign. I'm so tired of being sensitive to her needs. She's in debt up to her eyeballs. She doesn't have hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic volunteers in her database. She doesn't draw tens of thousands of people to rallies. She doesn't take the high road in her campaign. She voted for the war and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I've had it with this BS.

        •  She is a MEAN, SPITEFUL, SELF-CENTERED person -- (0+ / 0-)

          and those are qualities that can be -- and are -- found in men and women alike.

          An ESCALATING LIAR, it just keeps changing. Have a look at the rhetoric history re Michigan & Florida. This entitled person is that woinderfuol role model for young girls and young women everywhere:

          If you can't win on your merits, CHEATING IS OKAY, as long as you're a woman. THAT's her enduring behavior & therefore societal message that's there for females of all ages to behold. If that's progress, no thank you.


          (1) THE 100% AGREEMENT WITH THE DNC RULES:


          TODAY, in Boca Raton, FL,  lying trying to pound home a lie about disenfrachisement. Because, afterall, what are the "little people" going to do, go check?


          (3) And the latest from JED REPORT -- Hillary on the Radio, lying further.

          "I think what's happened in Florida & Michigan raises SERIOUS questions about the principles of our party..."


          Come, come, little girls, gather round the electronic campfire. Watch & absorb well the secrets for getting ahead "as a woman" in life.

          _ it's now a fight to the finish>> Dean progressives v. Clinton centrists.

          by rhfactor on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  why are women kidding themselves? (18+ / 0-)

        hillary is where she is because she is a rich white well connected woman. she is the exception rather than the rule. she is not paving the way for ANY woman to be president. obama is making it possible for ANY person to come from common beginnings and make it. that road must be paved first so all men and women can have access.

        REALITY IS NOT ALWAYS PROBABLE,OR LIKELY. JORGE LUIS BORGES

        by AltruisticSkeptic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:19:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One assumes that ... (16+ / 0-)

          ... by

          why are women kidding themselves?

          you mean

          why are some women kidding themselves?

          or

          why are female supporters of HRC kidding themselves?

          or, more specifically,

          why is Joy Behar kidding herself?

          You surely don't mean to tar all women with the same brush.  Far too many of us do not support her, never supported her, and are as impatient as anyone else for this to end so we can move on with the important work of getting a Democrat back into the White House, along with as many Democratic congresscritters as possible.

          "War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate." - Marvin Gaye (-5.25, -4.97)

          by JBL55 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:26:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  amazing how far away (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Spoc42, miss SPED, princss6

          from that basic fact the whole media narrative has gotten.

          but its very important as to why its best for Obama to be the nominee.  as soon as Clinton claimed the nomination, had she won, and the media would have stopped, completely stopped, talking about her 'strong support' among ignorant and uneducated whites, and immediately switched over to talking about what a rich, white, well-connected, semi-corrupt woman she is who used racial tactics against someone in her own party to try to win a 3rd Clinton term on the coattails of her husband.  there is symbolism to Clinton's run, yes, but when you look more up close, it would be pretty easy to tear apart.  

          it has been out-of-bounds, completely, for Obama to discuss the fact that Clinton only is at the level of prominence that she's at because her husband was president.  100% undeniably true as that is, Obama himself and us as supporters, have been pretty much banned from saying this.  well, its true, she would really be nowhere politically without Bill.  

          there are PLENTY of women from Hillary's generation who actually went into politics themselves, ran for office themselves, back in the 60s 70s and 80s.  Hillary Clinton didn't do that, she helped her husband run, and worked on behalf of the interests of powerful corporations, against the interests of the 'little people' she panders to so shamelessly now.  I would really hope that a woman who has been working in politics for much longer than Clinton, and who is a self-made person, not the inheritor of status because of her husband, would be the first woman to be elected president.

          the Dems' inability to attack Clinton on these basic grounds didn't stop her from playing race though.  didn't stop Geraldine Ferraro from giving every ignorant person an excuse to HATE Obama because of how 'lucky' he is for being black.

          Do we have any figures on how scared they are? ~ MPFC's 'Mr. Neutron' episode

          by itsbenj on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:34:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (7+ / 0-)

        Behar's ridiculous declaration is just another example of the baseless "we're victims of sexism" BS that keeps rearing its ugly head in this process.

        I mean, come on, Behar, what's your beef? Are you suggesting that it was mean of Barack and the other men to run against Hillary? That he should defer to her because she's a girl? Egad.

        As a woman, I certainly don't want Behar, Ferraro, or HRC, speaking for me.

        If Clinton is not the nominee, it's because she failed to win the nomination, plain and simple.  No one can take something away from her she never had.

      •  I'm a 62-year-old white woman and I am (6+ / 0-)

        disgusted with all this complaining and whining and blaming Hillary's loss on sexism.

        First of all, I don't like blaming. Take responsibility for what went wrong first. But that's another topic for elsewhere.

        Sexism? Misogyny? I know them well. I was brought up in a family that valued the males for their potential, while we females, while well loved, were not expected to achieve more than marriage and children. (Fortunately, I had a mother who rebelled against that, and encouraged me to do the same.) And I'm old enough to have been told, when asking for a raise, that the men were the ones who needed the money - since they were the ones who supported families.

        I could write a book, as they say. It would be nice to have a woman president. But not just any woman. Hillary Clinton doesn't have the qualities I'm looking for in a president, but I realize she's not the last chance we'll ever have.

        I don't know if I'm angry or just sad. Every time one of her supporters yells sexism, it not only demeans them, Hillary and their cause, it demeans all of us women. You never make progress by complaining about discrimination. You never let them see you sweat. It just comes off as whining.

        And in this case, it is whining - since I agree with Delaware Dan - Barack has earned his lead for so many reasons. To name just a couple: he's stuck to the rules of the Democratic Party and is leading in delegates and now superdelegates. He's run a well-organized campaign that mapped out its strategies and tactics from beginning to end, and he worked with the potential of the internet and collected an astounding amount of campaign contributions.

        And he's never called racism when things didn't go his way. He had the good sense to realize (I'm assuming) it would make difficult situations impossible. It might make the liberals sympathetic, but it could alienate others to where he might never reach them. And, worse, move relations between whites and blacks backwards, not forwards.

        This is what these Clinton supporters are doing for women  - threatening any gains we have been making, just those in the decades since I was turned down for that raise. All this furor is reminding the men who already think we have too many rights how much they hate it and any pushy women who get in their way.

        At first I hated all this name calling because it was bad behavior. Now, if it continues like this, I can see where it might damage what women and especially these women have been working to achieve in my lifetime.

        It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. - Mother Teresa

        by paluxy1945 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm 13 years younger than you (0+ / 0-)

          and I remember the "Help Wanted -- Men" and "Help Wanted -- Women" sections in the classified ads. And my mom was one of the first women on our block to return to the workforce when I entered first grade...and it was at my dad's encouragement. Early on I went to a neighbor's house after school or was involved in activities like the Girl Scouts -- but later on I became one of the first "latchkey kids" in my class, especially after my dad had his heart attack and Mom split her time between work, home and the hospital before he died.

          "Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher

          by Cali Scribe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:27:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So am I. Here's my email to Stanley: (0+ / 0-)

          In the last line of your column, you quoted: “A man took it away from a woman,” Joy Behar replied. “Then they yelled at her for complaining about it.”

          I am a 62-year-old white woman. I am stunned at the breath-taking display of elitism, prejudice, sense of entitlement and rank sexism revealed by Joy Behar's statement and your choosing to reprint it. It exemplifies all of the small-mindedness that has made this primary so painful and, indeed, is the underpinning for so many issues that divide our society and encourage people not to respect each other as human beings. Please take some time for deep introspection about this, because disseminating this kind of swill is a significant part of the problem, not part of the solution.

          "Everything we do or say should be done or said consciously."

          by TheWesternSun on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:39:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary and her supporters have become (11+ / 0-)

      the "special interests" that have corrupted Washington for so long. Apparently women's issues are the only thing that should matter in this election.

    •  It's also disheartening as a woman. (10+ / 0-)

      This is not the kind of dialog I was "liberated" to hear and maintain.  Two worthy candidates went head-to-head to compete for the nomination.  One candidate inevitably won, the other fought a good fight.  That's all there is to it.  It gets my hackles up every single time the situation is boiled down to man/woman or black/white.

      I like to go to school, but because of the explosions I can't focus. -Muhammed, 12-year-old Iraqi schoolboy

      by mystery2me on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:24:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  believe me (3+ / 0-)

      it's disheartening as a woman and a multi-decade feminist also, to hear this stuff.

    •  The Dem frontrunner rarely gets the nomination (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cathy Willey

      Did the Catholic (Kerry) take it away from the Jew (Lieberman)?

      Did the Irish American (Bill Clinton) take it away from Italian American (Mario Cuomo)?

      Did Dukakis take it away from Gary Hart?

      Did Jimmy Carter take it from Ted Kennedy?

      "I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually." James Baldwin

      by zdefender on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sadly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cathy Willey, ChristieKeith

      this is a form of feminist anger that I cannot agree with: it is NOT about those "chauvanist pig bastards", and this meme is evidence of the low quality of self responsibility exhibited by these women.

      Senator Obama's campaign was enormously creative and well planned.  AND he came from a highly disadvantaged position.  

      This dialogue is small, and ignores a great many facts.
      The theme of lobbyist and corporate issues; votes for the war . . . those are the things that decided this nomination: NOT the ridiculously superficial meaning being given to voter's thinking.  How disrespectful and superficial- really!

    •  Bloodied Thumbs Up for Hillary's War-and Warriors (0+ / 0-)

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      I'm a male, and an Obama supporter, I used to be an Edwards supporter, and would have been a Jan Schakowsky supporter if she had run, simply because I felt that each of them represents the best candidate we could have chosen. That said, it's a time when a lot of women and men who fought one hell of a good, sometimes dirty, fight are nursing their wounds and it would do each Obama supporter well to offer them a gracious and respectful hand in acknowledgment for their cause and for the race well run.

      Sure there will be a few self-interested sour grapes from folks like Geraldine Ferraro, but why should we expect the ranks of Hillary's female (and male) supporters not to include a few grumbling bigots and sore losers? On the whole, what the Democrats will get out of Hillary's undaunted race is a new model for warriorhood from the many sisters and brothers who will, for the very most part, wipe their bloodied noses, suck it up and stand shoulder to shoulder with us in the Fall as we all fight to remove the vestiges of the most malignant administration this country has ever known.

      So, yeah, Hillary spent four months not playing the race card while playing the race card, but WE, the Democrats registered, what, two and a half million new voters?! And Hillary will also get up off the floor and will fight for the Obama presidency, too. And it is sure a hell of a lot better to have a major-league street fighter like Hillary Clinton on your side than fighting against you.

      What people sometimes forget, as Barack and Hillary never will, was that this was the fifty-five round Championship Fist Fight for the Democratic Nomination. Barack will be better and tougher for it, (Thank God, Reverend Wright didn't rear his pompous, self-important head in October), and Hillary has absolutely proven that a "girl" can go toe to toe and nose to nose in the hardest ring in American politics. That will never be in question again.

      So, while I'm way glad that Barack won, I'm equally glad that Hillary fought the unbelievable fight that she did. Yes she lost, but, damn, does she have the heart of a warrior--and that will be a legacy that should ring through the hearts and souls of every Democrat, man and woman, young and old.

      Hillary's battle will certainly be the model for many future Democratic women when they contend for office--which is all the better to ensure that we Democrats face future general elections with the best, and toughest, candidates in place. For Democratic males it may be a new era too, as we can expect much tougher fights with female opponents who were inspired and informed by Hillary's relentless charge. So we better get ready, boys, because the girls are going to keep bringing it on!

      "Beware the terrible simplifiers." -- Jacob Burckhardt (quoted by Bill Moyers).

      by Hoomai29 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:47:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary Got Bad Advice Ran A Bad Campaign Yes Men (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cathy Willey

      Screwed Her But Not Barack Obama. Wanna Know Who?

      -Bill Clinton
      -Mark Penn
      -Howard Wolfson
      -Harold Ickes
      -James Carville
      ...

      They all thought she could run as an incumbent and win and they underestimated her opponent Barack Obama, who ran a great campaign, had a great message of change, I mean what should he do know ignore that he won fair and square, roll over and play dead so that Hillary gets her way.

      Obama '08
      Dont Be Fooled. CHANGE Is Real And It Starts In YOU?

      by DFutureIsNow on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:54:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hate her guts? (0+ / 0-)

      I think such a visceral reaction is a symptom of something far deeper. Inside you. How is your relationship with your wife?

  •  Very well said (32+ / 0-)

    and very true.

    I think my favorite bit of verbiage along those lines was some blogger (can't find the link, so this is a from-memory paraphrase, sorry) who said that white women wouldn't stand for being told to "go sit in the back of the bus".

    Jesus wept.

    -dms

    Having trouble finding stuff on Daily Kos? This page has some handy hints and tricks.

    by dmsilev on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:29:46 AM PDT

  •  Just imagine if Clinton won the most (68+ / 0-)

    contests and a majority of the elected delegates and the Superdelegates "took it away" from her... oh, wait, that's what she's trying to do to Obama.

    I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC

    by Marinesquire on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:31:01 AM PDT

  •  this chick agrees with you. (18+ / 0-)

    very well said, DD.

    "This year, it's on like Donkey Kong." --dkos user PresentMoment

    by birdbrain64 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:31:37 AM PDT

  •  See my sig line for details. (26+ / 0-)

    This happens in US history.

    "Ain't I a Woman too?" -- Sojourner Truth, to the Women's Suffrage movement. She was booed.

    by SteamPunkX on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:32:49 AM PDT

  •  What about the voters? (68+ / 0-)

    "A man took it away from a woman," Joy Behar replied. "Then they yelled at her for complaining about it."

    I don't get it.  A man didn't take it away from her.  Even ignoring that it wasn't hers to begin with, THE VOTERS made the decision.  THE VOTERS. What is so hard about understanding that?

      •  What sickens me most (14+ / 0-)

        Yet, most women who are Clinton supporters do feel this way. They feel that something has been taken from them.

        Once again, some women who call themselves feminists seem determined to live up to a negative stereotype of women - allowing their actions to be determined by their feelings rather than by facts.

        Once again I want to yell to them: This election is not about your feelings.

        "Lies return." - African proverb

        by Night Train on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:00:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  this line (7+ / 0-)

          Yet, most women who are Clinton supporters do feel this way.

          is an opinion of the diarist, and not a fact.  The diarist supports the comment with a few anecdotal references to family members.  I would like to see any kind of proof that MOST women who are Clinton supporters feel this way.

          As an Obama supporter who is also a woman, I do think that there has been misogyny in the media portrayal of Clinton, and many, many critical comments on this site have referred to her shrillness, inappropriate toughness, bad taste in clothes, hair, her laugh, her witchy- or bitchyness, etc.  But that does not prove that MOST female Clinton supporters believe the ridiculous claim that a man took it away from a woman.

          PS: many who are appalled by what they perceive as unfounded feminist claims by the Clinton camp have no problem at all accusing every single Clinton voter as racist for not choosing Obama.

          •  you are definitely correct (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neon Mama

            I'm quite sure that most of Clinton's supporters will vote for Barack, and that most would say as much now.  just not in places like KY and WV, where let's face it, for numerous complex reasons, the white people hate black people by a large majority.  but elsewhere, he'll be fine.

            but, the people getting all the attention right now are the tiny minority claiming this election has been stolen and saying that they won't vote for Obama because he is in fact the sole person responsible for the election being 'stolen'.  the media is playing this POV for all its worth and sadly, so is Hillary Clinton herself.  appealing directly and overtly to the racism of ignorant whites who are the most easily manipulated by the media.  

            Do we have any figures on how scared they are? ~ MPFC's 'Mr. Neutron' episode

            by itsbenj on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  as to these two ideas in your comment: (0+ / 0-)

              The racism of some people in KY and WV is a sad, frustrating fact of life, one which we should continue to try to overcome.  

              in places like KY and WV, where let's face it, for numerous complex reasons, the white people hate black people by a large majority.

              In such environments, racists will vote for a white candidate over a black one as a matter of course.

              Hillary Clinton herself.  appealing directly and overtly to the racism of ignorant whites who are the most easily manipulated by the media.  

              While Hillary made a "hard working whites" comment, she is not responsible for every racist voter in that region, as some here want to suggest she is. Short of dropping out of the race, as most would wish, her only other real alternative is to stump on, making speeches that say "don't vote for me, that would be a racist choice."

              •  I agree on your accessment to a degree (0+ / 0-)

                But lets step back a few months in PA.   Right before the J. Wright story broke.  Here you have a Governor (Ed Rendell) on national TV with Hillary by his side who stated "No one here that is white will vote for a black man".  Hillary should have immediately come out and repudiated that remark.

                Then the statement by Bill in SC.  Hillary never appologized for that

                The slip on morning Joe by Terry McCauliffe stating that whites in certain areas will not vote for blacks.   Mika, called him out on that, but he never appologized.

                Do you really think the "hard working, white workers" was a slip of the tongue?

                Her staff & supporters have repeated brought up the race issue.  Last night was the first time I heard her say that race & gender had no place at the ballot box.

                Don't get me started on the gender card.  I have tons of info on her remarks and those of her supporters have made sexist remarks.  Listen to her stumps and emails and the recorded message and news conferences as early as today about how she plays up the gender card while also trying to step back from them as it she has never perpetuated them.

                I have never heard Barack say anything regarding gender or race, except the speech in PA.

        •  It never feels good to lose. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aitchdee

          Nothing surprising about that.

        •  I don't think it is true (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zett, KozmoD, Neon Mama

          that most Clinton supporters feel this way.  It's just the noisy bunch storming the media outlets and the blogs.

    •  HRC said it herself. (5+ / 0-)

      "Voters are an important part of the process!"

  •  I wonder (14+ / 0-)

    how many  of Hillary Clinton's most fervent supporters would have supported a candidate identical to her in regard to policies, "experience," campaign approach, etc. if that candidate had NOT been a woman?

    The women we know, mostly 60+, don't identify with her for reasons that have nothing to do with gender and everything to do with style, character, the path she took to political prominence (would we even know her name if her husband hadn't been President?), her votes on the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman, the flag business, etc.

  •  Very well said (26+ / 0-)

    I read things like that comment by Joy Behar (who I also generally enjoy) and I just get so frustrated I can't speak straight.

    It makes me proud to be a 30-yr-old non-college-graduate working-class white female who helped to "take it away" from Hillary because I voted for the candidate I most believe in.

    •  I like Joy also---she's good for a couple amusing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aitchdee

      quips each day on The View.  But if you'e ever really paid attention to what is supposed to pass for intelligent political discourse on that show, you'd be in for a big shockeroo.  All are ridiculously uninformed, and I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the worthiness of anything said there.
       And that's even before we get to Bush/McSame Fan, Elizabeth, who deserves to be in the running for Worst Person in the World every single day.  

      •  Rosie didn't fit because she was better informed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dotster

        and not as congenial (go along, come along) as they wished.

        I have a friend and a sister who both like The View.  It is not very substantive from my perspective...which is why I read all these  diaries at KOS...looking for those pearls of hidden fact and insight.

        •  Oh, definitely not (0+ / 0-)

          I've never looked to The View for any kind of intelligent political discourse. It's just entertainment to me.

          It's kind of a slighly-more-intelligent-daytime-talkshow than, say, Regis & Kelly.

          Although I had to laugh (in an admittedly mean way) when I was surfing YouTube and kept finding videos of guests that blatantly ignored Elisabeth.

    •  More shoddy "reporting" by Alessandra Staley (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      larryww

      If Alessandra were a real journalist, she might know that Joy Behar is a loyal Obama supporter.

      But of course she didn't know the real story, so her piece in the NY Times is a sham.

      Joy Behar did an excellent job as a guest host on Air America, where she voiced her distaste for Hillary quite articulately.  

  •  Its not just her supporters (48+ / 0-)

    Clinton is feeding this stuff:

    "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

    and the kicker:

    Clinton, who is banking on a large win in Kentucky Tuesday to keep her presidential hopes alive, also said she doesn't believe racism has played a role in the presidential campaign. But the New York senator said sexist attitudes among voters and members of the media have been a constant detriment to her White House hopes.

    To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

    by discocarp on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:35:05 AM PDT

  •  Do you not think if the tables were turned, there (9+ / 0-)

    would not be many people expressing the exact same sentiment about something being taken away from an African American?

    Based on what I've read and seen there are a lot of people on both sides who view this primary in terms of race and gender.

    And anyone who didn't think that racism and sexism wouldn't play a role in this race when the Democratic Party fielded a black candidate and a female candidate, is living in a much nicer world than I have ever lived in.

    •  not as much (11+ / 0-)

      If HRC beat BHO in pledged delegates, states, and yes, popular vote then though some BHO supporters would be down but, IMHO, be more accepting.

      Some of the HRC supporter resentment comes from the fact that many were just so sure that she was going to win (expectation).

      Then a better candidate just comes along and takes her to school.  

      When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

      by onanyes on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:39:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if the situation were reversed (17+ / 0-)

        obama would have been out of this race along time ago.  If HRC had won the pledged delgegate count, I think that some may have been disappointed, but would support her.  Though, I can't say I would blame the African American community after some of the things that have been said.  Though, I think they would have forgiven and moved on.  

        I mean, if one thinks about HRC's argument about how voter's should have their say....  And yet she is expecting the supers to just ignore what the voters HAVE said and overturn the delgate count and give it to her.  Don't you think that giving it to her would be a slap in the face to women, because she didn't win it by the delegate count.  I certainly wouldn't want to get something I didn't earn fair and square.  

        You know, whenever I play a game with my daughter, I always make it clear that for me, the most important thing is to play fair and do your best.  And always be a good winner, as well as a good loser.  I make sure to back that up with a 'good job' when she wins.  And I also tell her that winning by cheating is not winning at all.  I will not change the rules in the middle of a game.  I tell her that if she wants to change the rules for the next game, that's fine.  But we do not change the rules while we are playing.

      •  I really don't think so. (6+ / 0-)

        If the race was just as close and let's just say he had the big states and she had the smaller states along with the popular vote totals she has, I think there would be just as much resentment.

        Hillary did herself in with her original and grotesquely overt "inevitability" claims.  Her failure really can't be assigned to sexism alone, but still it was a factor for her as being black is a factor for Obama.  Both have a harder job that your average white guy would.  Both face prejudices that create challenges and both enjoy some benefit because they are different - "historic" if you will.

        But human nature being what it is and based on how the race has played out, it is clear that both sides are not above assigning blame for their failures from time to time on their gender or race - rightly or wrongly - both sides have done it.

        •  Absolutely agree. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart, Neon Mama

          But we're overwhelmingly Obama supporters here, so--not unlike Clinton (and, well, the humans)--we enjoy our own reality.

          I was thinking about sexism and racism in this primary, trying to decide if there's more or less than usual. I think the default answer is 'more, much, much more.' But that's only because we had a viable woman and a viable African American; which argues the reverse pretty compellingly, to me.

          So I'm starting to think there's far less racism and sexism in this race. Yes, what there is, is far more overt. But the deep, deep, bottomless well of covert prejudice is drying up.

          I want someone to quote me in their sig line - Trix

          by GussieFN on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:01:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The reality is that in most political contests (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GussieFN, 3goldens

            the candidates are white guys so sexism and racism don't really play much of a role in the race.  That is one reason why it is harder for an African American or a woman to run for office - people don't want to deal with the potential sexism or racism that inevitably factors into the contest.  I think it was pretty cool and gutsy for the Democrats to go with the two candidates.  What I think is sad is that rather than creating a sense of common cause between two groups in the electorate who are traditionally marginalized based on nothing other than immutable god given attributes, it seems to be creating divisions between the two.

            •  Well, what I'm saying is that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              inclusiveheart, princss6

              in most political contests, because the candidates are white guys, the sexism and racism is actually extremely strong. Blacks and women need not apply. But it's hidden away, out of sight. Here, all that ugliness is diminished by the fact that our two strongest candidates were not white guys ... but, while diminished, it's tremendously more salient.

              And maybe sad, but also kind of inevitable. That's pretty much the history of marginalized groups, isn't it?

              I want someone to quote me in their sig line - Trix

              by GussieFN on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:28:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I think you hit on something significant there (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          onanyes, MyBrainWorks

          The real way in which sexism and racism have played a role is in what it took for both of them to get to run for president at all.

          Sexism has indeed made it more difficult for Hillary to get to where she is in life, but that has not manifested itself in terms of votes for Barack Obama. Those people are voting for John McCain.

          (-5.88, -6.46) Democracy is what happens between elections.

          by autoegocrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:26:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We'll see about the McCain voters - I'm not sure (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            autoegocrat

            that it will be as prolific as some may think if Obama does some reaching out that I think he has the skill and talent to do successfully.  I also think that Clinton will do her part and work hard to deliver her voters to Obama.

        •  I agree, however it wouldn't be coming from Obama (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          onanyes, princss6

          Some of Obama's supporters, perhaps, would be just as resentful and distorted in their rhetoric.  But based on what I've seen from Obama, I can't believe that if the situation were reversed, he would claim that racism played a part in the election, but not sexism.

    •  And those people... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      EB4Dean, catfood, LynneK, Darmok

      ...would be just as wrong. So what? In either case, the people griping would need to be called out on it.

    •  No, because if the table were turned.... (27+ / 0-)

      ....I would at least recognize that Clinton is leading the race in terms of delegates and votes and win undoubtedly be the nominee.  

      I would not bend reality to my wishes to come up with a metric in which I am leading so as to justify staying in the race.

      Indeed, if Barack Obama had lost 11 states in a row in February, he would have dropped out, and if he did not, Hillary, her supporters and the media, would be screaming at him demanding that he do so.

      •  Maybe he would have dropped out and maybe he (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GussieFN

        wouldn't have.  He doesn't seem like he is any more of a quitter than Clinton is. If the tables were turned and he had her results and she his - I think we'd all still be here now because at the core of this whole race is a romantic notion that we could have the first woman or African American president and I actually think that is a huge driver in this race being as close as it is.

        •  Perhaps, but don't you think that at the very (6+ / 0-)

          least, Hillary, her supporters, and the media would be insistent on his leaving the race, much more than they are now with Hillary?  

          It think the calls to quit would be deafening, with Hillary supporters calling him sexist for staying in.  

        •  How is realizing that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          davidincleveland, KozmoD, princss6

          you are so far behind that you can't possibly catch up, and thus, conceding defeat in any way, shape, or form, equal to being a "quitter"? What is so horrible about being able to lose with dignity?

          "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi -9.38/-6.26

          by LynneK on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think Obama would have hung in there even (0+ / 0-)

            if he lost 11 states - the fact that he entered the race at all is an indication to me that he intended to see it through as much as she did.  I think both of these candidates are particularly driven and determined - both have that quality that many people and politicians lack which is a real ability to get up after being knocked down and forging ahead.  The race wasn't over in Febraury and shouldn't have been imo - but I'm always pissed off that our primaries seem to consiste of Iowa and New Hampshire and then we anoint a king...  I like the fact that these candidates have had to work hard for this nomination - it is important training that Dem candidates have lacked in the face of GOP opponents in the last few contests.

      •  Interesting contradiction (4+ / 0-)

        I was watching Geraldine Ferraro and Rachel Maddow yesterday, and it occurs to me that the two arguments we are hearing from Clinton surrogates are kind of contradictory.

        1. Hillary is more electable than Obama
        1. Sexism is more powerful, ubiquitous, and accepted than racism

        Both sexism and racism are strong, and as with voting rights, racial barriers are coming down before gender ones.  How can Hillary be more electable if the sexism she is encountering is so pervasive?

        Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. -Albert Einstein

        by Primordial Ooze on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:58:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Same question goes for Obama on the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Primordial Ooze, Sanuk, Gut Check

          question of race.  Personally, I think it is a self-defeating argument for both camps.

          I was taught that in heated competition it wasn't a great idea to focus people on why some might not like you...

          When I heard Clinton's comments last night about sexism factoring into this race, my first thought was that it was a signal that she is winding down.  

          I think her comments indicate that she's ready to get out, but she's going to say what she thinks about the sexism before she loses the limelight.  

          Agree with her take or not - what she said in my mind was an indication that she knows she won't win and therefore expressing her perceptions of the effects of sexism on this race are no longer a threat to her candidacy.

          •  Interesting take. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            inclusiveheart, Sanuk

            I agree that it is self-defeating.

            I think you are probably right that she knows she can't win, but that her surrogates are not getting the hint.  It is a pretty subtle hint, after all.

            There are times when it is good to talk about particular reasons why people might not like you, in the context of inoculating yourself against a future attack.  Sexism and racism are not really targets for inoculation, although they can be (and are being) thrown around as accusations to manipulate perceptions.

            Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. -Albert Einstein

            by Primordial Ooze on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:23:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  not if he was behind in all metrics! (7+ / 0-)

      If there were only 3 contests left and Obama was behind in all metrics and broke to boot, that's not stolen...that's losing.

      "I ain't so afraid of losing something that I ain't gonna try to have it." Zoe (Firefly)

      by geejay on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:51:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, there wouldn't as you very well know (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      geejay

      Had Clinton run a positive campaign picking up an insurmountable elected delegates lead while Obama slashed and burned through the electorate, smearing, lying, calling Clinton an empty suit girl with a speech, there is no way in HELL people attracted to Obama's campaign of change and commonalities would put up with it.

      There's no "both sides."

      •  I wasn't talking about the two switching (0+ / 0-)

        personalities - that was a movie called Freaky Friday or something - not real.  When I said "if the tables were turned" I think most people understood that I meant that the race was as close - she had his result and he hers - and she had supers flocking to her - even when he did best in the big traditional Dem states etc.

        •  Then any comparison or attempts (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoenix Woman, gobucky, princss6

          at equivalencies are utterly useless.  It's not merely who won; it's how they won.  I will again state unequivocally that had Obama's conduct been the mirror image of Clinton's while the Clinton campaign instead took Obama's higher road, not only would I not support Obama, but I would be a vigorous critic of Obama.

          •  Well, that is what (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neon Mama

            you want to talk about.  How they got here isn't what I was addressing - although if she had won and run the same campaign, based on your comments to me, I'd say you'd be the first to say that race was a factor because you've asserted many times that the Clintons have used race against Obama.  The extent to which racism could be blamed in his case might be greater than the issue of sexism in hers. I don't think she lost because of sexism.  

            Personally, I thought sexism was just a really ugly parallel element to a race that she herself blew from the begining by arrogantly claiming that this nomination was hers when she asserted that she was inevitable long before the voting schedule was even decided.  But I am not surprised that some people have conflated the two issues - the one where she fucked up her own campaign and the one where people started using sexist characterizations of her to talk about her failure - you see because that is where some people crossed the line - she is losing because of real reasons having only to do with her professional performance and her decisions - but some people just couldn't help themselves and went and brought sexism into it in how they characterized her failings.  That is imo how we got here and it is too bad because it alienates people who probably would have seen the reality had they not been distracted by senseless and needless name-calling.

            •  She's lost and I'm saying (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              princss6

              she used race-baiting tactics against Obama.  Her winning or losing has nothing to do with that.  Obama won and did use gender-baiting tactics against Clinton.  His winning or losing has nothing to do with that.  I will say it again: had Obama's campaign used divide-and-conquer tactics to announce that his candidacy is representative of "hardworking Americans, male Americans," and that Clinton was an empty suit coasting on speech, I would have condemned Obama's campaign, period and end of story.

        •  From Betsy Reed's "Race to the Bottom" (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.thenation.com/...

          ...The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable, but there's reason to be concerned about her becoming the vehicle for a feminist reawakening. For one thing, feminist sympathy for her has begotten an "oppression sweepstakes" in which a number of her prominent supporters, dismayed at her upstaging by Obama, have declared a contest between racial and gender bias and named sexism the greater scourge. This maneuver is not only unhelpful for coalition-building but obstructs understanding of how sexism and racism have played out in this election in different (and interrelated) ways.

          Yet what is most troubling--and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement--is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival's race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right--in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country--seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaign's use of this strategy has many nonwhite and nonmainstream feminists crying foul.

          [...]

          "More than any single thing, that moment with Bill Clinton in South Carolina represents the rupture that was coming," says Harris-Lacewell. The moment occurred in late January, when the former President compared Obama's landslide win, in which he received a major boost from African-American voters, to Jesse Jackson's victories there in 1984 and 1988. Because the former President offered the comparison unprompted, in response to a question that had nothing to do with Jackson or race, the statement was widely read as chalking up Obama's win to his blackness alone and thus attempting to marginalize him as a doomed minority candidate with limited appeal. Obama was now "the black candidate," in the words of one Clinton strategist quoted by the AP.

          [...]

          Giddings calls the Wright association a "litmus test" that Obama must pass, saying, "It will be interesting to see if a man of color, a man who's cosmopolitan, can be the quintessential symbol of America" as its President.

          Obama initially responded to that challenge with his speech in Philadelphia on March 18. While condemning Wright's words, he placed them in a historical context of racial oppression and said, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." (More recently, of course, Obama did renounce him.) But in the Philadelphia speech, called "A More Perfect Union," Obama also outlined a racially universal definition of American citizenship and affirmed his commitment to represent all Americans as President. "I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together--unless we perfect our union by understanding that we have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction."

          A mere three days after Obama spoke those words, Bill Clinton made this statement in North Carolina about a potential Clinton-McCain general election matchup: "I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." Whether or not this statement constituted McCarthyism, as one Obama surrogate alleged and as Clinton supporters vigorously denied, the timing of the remark made its meaning quite clear: controversies relating to Obama's race render him less fit than either Hillary or McCain to run for president as a patriotic American. A couple of weeks later, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen went so far as to call on Obama to make another speech, modeled after John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1960 that, despite his Catholicism, he would respect the separation of church and state as President--as though Obama's blackness were a sign of allegiance to some entity, like the Vatican, other than the United States of America.

          In the Democratic debates, enabled by the moderators, Hillary Clinton has increasingly deployed issues of race and patriotism as a wedge strategy against her opponent. First, in the debate in Cleveland on February 26, she pressed Obama not only to denounce but to reject Louis Farrakhan--to whom he was spuriously linked through Reverend Wright, who had taken a trip with the black nationalist leader in the 1980s. In style as well as content, that attack was a harbinger of things to come. In the most recent debate, ABC's George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson peppered Obama with questions such as, "Do you believe [Wright] is as patriotic as you are?" and, regarding former Weatherman Bill Ayers, a Chicago neighbor and Obama supporter, "Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?" Time after time, Clinton picked up the line and ran with it. "You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds. And so this is a legitimate area...for people to be exploring and trying to find answers," she said, seeming to abandon her argument that these issues are fair game now only because they will be raised by Republicans later and thus are relevant to an evaluation of Obama's electability.

          [...]

          While on occasion Obama's campaign has complained of racial slights, Obama himself has avoided raising the charge directly. Even so, Clinton supporters make the twisted claim that it is Obama who has racialized the campaign. "While promoting Obama as a 'post-racial' figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics," wrote Sean Wilentz in The New Republic in an article titled "Race Man." Bill Clinton recently groused that the Obama camp, in the controversy over his Jackson remark, "played the race card on me."

          [...]

          Among the black feminists interviewed for this article, reactions to the declarations of sexism's greater toll by Clinton supporters--and their demand that all women back their candidate out of gender solidarity, regardless of the broader politics of the campaign--ran the gamut from astonishment to dismay to fury. Patricia Hill Collins, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland and author of Black Feminist Thought, recalls how, before they were reduced to their race or gender, the candidates were not seen solely through the prism of identity, and many Democrats were thrilled with the choices before them. But of the present, she says, "It is such a distressing, ugly period. Clinton has manipulated ideas about race, but Obama has not manipulated similar ideas about gender." This has exacerbated longstanding racial tensions within the women's movement, Collins notes, and is likely to alienate young black women who might otherwise have been receptive to feminism. "We had made progress in getting younger black women to see that gender does matter in their lives. Now they are going to ask, What kind of white woman is Hillary Clinton?"

          The sense of progress unraveling is profound. "What happened to the perspective that the failures of feminism lay in pandering to racism, to everyone nodding that these were fatal mistakes--how is it that all that could be jettisoned?" asks Crenshaw, who co-wrote a piece with Eve Ensler on the Huffington Post called "Feminist Ultimatums: Not in Our Name." Crenshaw says that, appalled as she is by the sexism toward Clinton, she found herself stunned by some of the arguments pro-Hillary feminists were making. "There is a myopic focus on the aspiration of having a woman in the White House--perhaps not any woman, but it seems to be pretty much enough that she be a Democratic woman." This stance, says Crenshaw, "is really a betrayal."

          Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, attributes this go-for-broke attitude to the mindset of corporate feminism. "There's a way in which feminists who have been seriously engaged in electoral politics for a long time, the institutional DC feminist leadership, they are just with Hillary Clinton come hell or high water. I think they have accepted, as she has accepted, a similar career trajectory. They are not uncomfortable with what has gone on in the campaign, because they see electoral campaigns as mere instruments for getting elected. This is just the way it is. We have to get elected."

          The implications of all this for the future of feminism depend significantly on the outcome of the primary, says Kissling. "If Clinton wins, the older-line women's movement will continue; it will be a continuation of power for them. If she doesn't win, it will be a death knell for those people. And that may be a good thing--that a younger generation will start to take over."

          •  The last para is why I am glad that Clinton is (0+ / 0-)

            losing this race.  I have a much less charitable phrase for that old guard feminist crowd - as much as I appreciate the advancements they have made - many of which I have benefitted from - I am ready for them to retire because I think their tone is often very out of step with the current era.  I do worry at times though - being in that cusp group of women born just early enough to remember what it used to be like and late enough that many of the worst barriers were removed for me - that the generation after mine will understand that we are going to have to hold the line and that these advancements could be taken away if we don't.  The recent equal pay SCOTUS case is a good example of how things can be lost.

            Anyhow - read my post above in response to GN - I think I made it clear that I don't agree with Behar - just that I see where she is coming from and what led to the sentiment she expressed.

    •  That's not the issue (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, KozmoD, LynneK, princss6

      No one has asserted that race or gender haven't played roles during the campaign.  However, acknowledging that they played roles doesn't support the assertion that the nomination was 'taken away' from her.  There's actually ZERO support for that notion.  If the tables were turned I'm sure there would be tremendous disappointment and there probably WOULD be people claiming that Obama had the nomination TAKEN away from him...and those people would also be wrong.  Obama won more delegates that she did.  No one gave him shit.

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Ghandi

      by Triscula on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:04:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am not agreeing with Behar at all. (0+ / 0-)

        But I am not surprised that there are people who feel this way.  My comment was only to point out that some people are going to feel the way she does as I believe some people on the other side would if the tables were turned.

    •  No (7+ / 0-)

      Any non-Hillary candidate would have dropped out after losing 11 in a row.  Only the wife of a powerful former president could have made the claim that all the losing proved somebody was ``stealing'' it.

    •  No, Because... (5+ / 0-)

      ...if the tables were turned, Obama would have graciously bowed out after 11 straight defeats after Super Tuesday without question.

    •  The Ferraro Factor (0+ / 0-)

      To wit: More Hillary fans say they won't vote for Obama than Obama fans say they won't vote for Hillary.

      Poll after poll shows this.

      I see some wackiness from some Obama fans, but a lot less than there used to be; they've calmed down quite a bit over the past few months.  And most of the wackiness isn't coming from Obama's surrogates.  

      The same cannot be said of the Clinton campaign. Look at the crap being flung by Hillary's surrogates -- including her own husband, a former president of the United States, and most of the top leaders of the institutional/corporate feminist movement (that is, as feminist Betsy Reed puts it, all the older women who want to see a woman president before they die and don't much care how this is achieved):

      The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable, but there's reason to be concerned about her becoming the vehicle for a feminist reawakening. For one thing, feminist sympathy for her has begotten an "oppression sweepstakes" in which a number of her prominent supporters, dismayed at her upstaging by Obama, have declared a contest between racial and gender bias and named sexism the greater scourge. This maneuver is not only unhelpful for coalition-building but obstructs understanding of how sexism and racism have played out in this election in different (and interrelated) ways.

      Yet what is most troubling--and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement--is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival's race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right--in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country--seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaign's use of this strategy has many nonwhite and nonmainstream feminists crying foul.

      [...]

      "More than any single thing, that moment with Bill Clinton in South Carolina represents the rupture that was coming," says Harris-Lacewell. The moment occurred in late January, when the former President compared Obama's landslide win, in which he received a major boost from African-American voters, to Jesse Jackson's victories there in 1984 and 1988. Because the former President offered the comparison unprompted, in response to a question that had nothing to do with Jackson or race, the statement was widely read as chalking up Obama's win to his blackness alone and thus attempting to marginalize him as a doomed minority candidate with limited appeal. Obama was now "the black candidate," in the words of one Clinton strategist quoted by the AP.

      [...]

      Giddings calls the Wright association a "litmus test" that Obama must pass, saying, "It will be interesting to see if a man of color, a man who's cosmopolitan, can be the quintessential symbol of America" as its President.

      Obama initially responded to that challenge with his speech in Philadelphia on March 18. While condemning Wright's words, he placed them in a historical context of racial oppression and said, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." (More recently, of course, Obama did renounce him.) But in the Philadelphia speech, called "A More Perfect Union," Obama also outlined a racially universal definition of American citizenship and affirmed his commitment to represent all Americans as President. "I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together--unless we perfect our union by understanding that we have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction."

      A mere three days after Obama spoke those words, Bill Clinton made this statement in North Carolina about a potential Clinton-McCain general election matchup: "I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." Whether or not this statement constituted McCarthyism, as one Obama surrogate alleged and as Clinton supporters vigorously denied, the timing of the remark made its meaning quite clear: controversies relating to Obama's race render him less fit than either Hillary or McCain to run for president as a patriotic American. A couple of weeks later, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen went so far as to call on Obama to make another speech, modeled after John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1960 that, despite his Catholicism, he would respect the separation of church and state as President--as though Obama's blackness were a sign of allegiance to some entity, like the Vatican, other than the United States of America.

      [...]

      Among the black feminists interviewed for this article, reactions to the declarations of sexism's greater toll by Clinton supporters--and their demand that all women back their candidate out of gender solidarity, regardless of the broader politics of the campaign--ran the gamut from astonishment to dismay to fury. Patricia Hill Collins, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland and author of Black Feminist Thought, recalls how, before they were reduced to their race or gender, the candidates were not seen solely through the prism of identity, and many Democrats were thrilled with the choices before them. But of the present, she says, "It is such a distressing, ugly period. Clinton has manipulated ideas about race, but Obama has not manipulated similar ideas about gender." This has exacerbated longstanding racial tensions within the women's movement, Collins notes, and is likely to alienate young black women who might otherwise have been receptive to feminism. "We had made progress in getting younger black women to see that gender does matter in their lives. Now they are going to ask, What kind of white woman is Hillary Clinton?"

      The sense of progress unraveling is profound. "What happened to the perspective that the failures of feminism lay in pandering to racism, to everyone nodding that these were fatal mistakes--how is it that all that could be jettisoned?" asks Crenshaw, who co-wrote a piece with Eve Ensler on the Huffington Post called "Feminist Ultimatums: Not in Our Name." Crenshaw says that, appalled as she is by the sexism toward Clinton, she found herself stunned by some of the arguments pro-Hillary feminists were making. "There is a myopic focus on the aspiration of having a woman in the White House--perhaps not any woman, but it seems to be pretty much enough that she be a Democratic woman." This stance, says Crenshaw, "is really a betrayal."

      Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, attributes this go-for-broke attitude to the mindset of corporate feminism. "There's a way in which feminists who have been seriously engaged in electoral politics for a long time, the institutional DC feminist leadership, they are just with Hillary Clinton come hell or high water. I think they have accepted, as she has accepted, a similar career trajectory. They are not uncomfortable with what has gone on in the campaign, because they see electoral campaigns as mere instruments for getting elected. This is just the way it is. We have to get elected."

      The implications of all this for the future of feminism depend significantly on the outcome of the primary, says Kissling. "If Clinton wins, the older-line women's movement will continue; it will be a continuation of power for them. If she doesn't win, it will be a death knell for those people. And that may be a good thing--that a younger generation will start to take over."

      Many younger women, indeed, have responded to the admonishments of their pro-Hillary second-wave elders by articulating a sophisticated political orientation that includes feminism but is not confined to it. They may support Obama, but they still abhor the sexism Clinton has faced. And they detect--and reject--a tinge of sexism among male peers who have developed man-crushes on the dashing senator from Illinois. "Even while they voice dismay over the retro tone of the pro-Clinton feminist whine, a growing number of young women are struggling to describe a gut conviction that there is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots," wrote Rebecca Traister in Salon.

      It's not just young feminists who have taken such a nuanced view. Calling themselves Feminists for Peace and Obama, 1,500 prominent progressive feminists--including Kissling, Barbara Ehrenreich and this magazine's Katha Pollitt--signed on to a statement endorsing him and disavowing Clinton's militaristic politics. "Issues of war and peace are also part of a feminist agenda," they declared.

      In some sense, this is a clarifying moment as well as a wrenching one. For so many years, feminists have been engaged in a pushback against the right that has obscured some of the real and important differences among them. "Today you see things you might not have seen. It's clearer now about where the lines are between corporate feminism and more grassroots, global feminism," says Crenshaw. Women who identify with the latter movement are saying, as she puts it, "'Wait a minute, that's not the banner we are marching under!'"

    •  It would be the wrong assumption (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, LynneK, princss6

      and would be downplayed or derided equally, I feel.

      The voters are speaking in these primaries, with regional and demographic patterns emerging and evolving.  There is inherent sexism and racism in this election with which to contend - we've seen it in the voting patterns somewhat, but mostly in the commentary and some campaign postures.

      I can't say whether those "ism" factors are relatively equivalent or not, but Sen. Clinton began this race with a predicted lead of significant proportions.  She lost that assumed lead on Super Tuesday and hasn't recovered since.  Meanwhile, she's been throwing her Plan B-style, kitchen sink at Obama's campaign in a vain attempt to polarize voters against Obama, leaving her as the only alternative.  She campaigns positively, as well, but her reported lies about the past records of both candidates haven't helped her, either.

      Given that the Obama camp has not demonstrably played any sexist card, and that even the Republicans have sought to buttress Clinton's campaigning and GOTV efforts, I'm currently comfortable with summarizing her current situation as being primarily due to losing campaign decisions compared to what has been managed by the Obama campaign.  The floated lies and other negative colours which have stuck to her image are included in those "losing" decisions by Clinton and her staff, in this case.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:44:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, did Richardson fail because of blatant anti - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LynneK

      hispanic voting?  Neither he nor his supporters ever tried to perpetrate such nonsense.

      Did Edwards et al drop out from the "anti-white guy" vote?  Nope? Didn't think so.

      Hillary lost me the days she didn't bother to read the NIE estimate on Iraq, voted for AUMF for Iraq, and struck out again when she voted to classify part of Iran's army as a terrorist group -- to pave the way for Iran war.

      Our CIA and military black ops forces could be defined the same way as terrorist groups when they commit terrorist acts.(Contras anyone?) How would we feel if China decided to invade Mexico and declare our guys terrorists so they could attack us?  It is insane -- and I don't want another insane foreign policy president -- male or female.

      De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

      by Neon Mama on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:12:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you want to know what I think, you can read my (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chiniqua

        posts responding to other comments - I don't think sexism was Clinton's problem - I think her problem is that she screwed up in very real ways during this campaign.  But I am not surprised that some of her supporters are conflating the two issues since there were a lot of really shitty sexist things said about how and why she failed.

        •  And yet, you ignore the exit polls that show (0+ / 0-)

          that Hillary benefited from her gender.  Maybe in the G.E., it would have played more of a factor, but in the primaries, Hillary got votes for being a woman and got votes for being white by what can only be described as the racist vote.  Women are also a larger proportion of the Democratic primary vote than the general population.

          John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

          by beachmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:26:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What? "I ignore" - no I don't. (0+ / 0-)

            Please re-read my comment and don't be so presumptuous about what I supposedly ignore.  

            In any case, I am not sure what any of that has to do with the fact that supposedly reputable media outlets like the New York Times allowed the term "white bitch" to "grace" their pages in reference to Clinton while the Washington Post was focusing on her cleavage.

            Or are you like the asshole I saw on CNN last night who claimed that using that kind of term for a woman was okay if you're refering to Hillary Clinton?

            How about we just talk about why she blew it not in gender based terms?  Or is that too hard for you?

    •  Obama would NEVER have engaged in that talk (0+ / 0-)

      That is not who he is.  Also, Hillary has benefited from her gender, as more women vote in the Democratic primary, and those questioned on whether gender was important for their vote picked Clinton.  Sure, there will be talk of racism if Obama lost, but it never would have come from him or his campaign.

      John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

      by beachmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:17:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you really believe that if she (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      princss6

      were in the lead that she would be promoting "every vote should count"?  She would have blown off MI & FL like nobody's business.

      Remember in her speech in NH, she stated that MI & FL wouldn't count for anything.

      But she thought she would be crowned on Super Tuesday.

      She underestimated the "Black man" who has a better strategy than she did.  She had no plan B because she was so sure she was owed it.

    •  I don't think so... (0+ / 0-)

      Many AAs from the beginning never thought Barack had a chance.  But given the current situation, where Barack is ahead in the delegate count, number of states won, etc., I think his supporters would feel it was stolen from him, not by "women" but by the Clintons.  

  •  Watch out for diry ticks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, rhetoricus

    If she wins it, she'll loose.
    If she looses it, She'll make sure he'll loose.

  •  Is Joy Behar a New Yorker? (4+ / 0-)

    I'm about to offend New Yorkers, so let me point out that I was born and raised in NYC and never spent more than a week at a time outside NYC for the first 17 years of my life.

    That said, New Yorkers have a great, big, huge chip on their shoulders about what they are 'entitled' to.

    I still feel like the Knicks are entitled to make the playoffs every year too. Unfortunately, the rest of the league "took it away from them".

    Deal with it, Joy.

    John McCain: Like Hope, But Different.

    by malharden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:36:05 AM PDT

  •  Took It Away? (12+ / 0-)

    Doesn't that sort of imply she had it to start with?

    Obama has led this thing from wire to wire -- starting in Iowa all the way through Oregon last night.

    I sense the Clinton camp is going to try to turn Hillary into Al Gore circa 2000 and imply that she's been robbed somehow.

    How Howard Dean and just sit back and watch all of this happen is beyond me.

    It's bad enough that she's doing everything she can to destroy the fucking party and make sure Obama can't win in November. But it's worse that she seems to actually get off on it.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:36:40 AM PDT

    •  You're right, there is a big iceberg looming (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah

      Howard Dean - or SOMEBODY - needs to do something now!

    •  Hillary and Gore (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978, WildcatPatriot, LynneK, princss6

      Your comment displays another reason why I never supported the Clinton campaign.  I agree she seems to want to seem like the victim.  Where was her so-called "leadership" in 2000 when Gore clearly won the election?

      I can understand Dean's approach to this cycle: the Clinton's do wield a lot of power within Democratic circles.  How many of his projects would be undermined by Clinton supporters if he came out strong against her?

    •  Her surrogates took down Dean in 2003 (5+ / 0-)

      When Howard Dean looked like he was catching on, the "Democratic establishment" turned on him from
      Joe Lieberman personal attacks to various memes that he was deranged and crazy. Much of that came from
      HRC sympathizers from the sidelines. She wasn't ready for A CAMPAIGN  in 2004, so putting up a weaker candidate against Bush would do to open it up for 2008. How did Kerry go from 8%,from nowhere to winner in just a few weeks?

      (A Dem winning  might have pushed her run to 2012). I thought this was CT, sour grapes and insider gossip but now the fruits of that style are all over us.  I wouldn't be suprised that an Obama loss to McCain would make 2012 "easier" for her next campaign.

      She has to disavow this. Every Super D should tell her this is not acceptable behavior privately.

      Every Democrat out there has flaws. We don't obsess about them endlessly or throw the flaws in their faces, we help them up and keep our cause moving forward.

      by Pete Rock on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:09:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see it the way you do, Pete Rock (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pete Rock

        It was the DLC wing of the party who sabotaged Dean's nomination.  I was amazed when the meme was pushed that Kerry was "electable", as many of us thought he was one of the least "electable" of the pack.  At the time, it occurred to me that the party insiders would rather lose with Kerry than win with Dean.  Now I see why the DLC pushed him so hard.  

    •  Howard Dean (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gobucky, Neon Mama

      I don't think that anyone should assume that Howard Dean (or anyone else in the DNC hierarchy) is 'sitting back and doing nothing".  Most of us have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, what sort of phone conversations are being had, or what sort of pressures are being applied.  My guess is that there's plenty going on and that Dean and other's with influence are using it in the best way they know how.  Dean can't force Clinton to do anything.  He's beholden to the process and the rules like everyone else.  He also can't present the appearance of bias.  This process has to play itself out and, as painful and maddening as it is, there's no single person (other than Clinton herself) that can end it.

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Ghandi

      by Triscula on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:14:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  yeah, there is resentment aimed at BHO (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xynz, elmo, catfood, boofdah, sherlyle, meatwad420

    just because he dared to run!!!

    sigh...

    Here is one weakness of mine:  I know that every vote counts.  But frankly, there is a part of me that just doesn't want to be seen as being on the same side as people like this; it would be cool if we could win without them!

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:37:44 AM PDT

  •  Many women don't "get" competition (12+ / 0-)

    We're trained to be team players, to compromise and negotiate, to seek and find consensus. Many of us aren't comfortable with plain, unadorned competition.

    Sure, Hillary has lost according to the rules of competition,  but it isn't fair, so she should get the nomination. "Fair" means, in this context, giving value to things that aren't measured by the simple win/loss metrics: her hard work, her spirit, what she has suffered (repeated humiliation from an adulterous spouse, nasty rhetoric from right wingers, etc.).

    When Clinton makes the argument for superdelegates to pick her, instead of the winner of the electoral process, she's really making what is at bottom an affirmative action argument, ironically enough.

  •  One of the things that bothered me most (20+ / 0-)

    about the Clinton campaign was the 60 Minutes interview. She was asked repeatedly what she would do if she were not the nominee, and she responded over and over again, "I will be the nominee." that awful sense of entitlement really bothered me. and Obama is supposed to the elitist--give me a break.

  •  excellent post (11+ / 0-)

    These commentators conveniently fail to mention that Obama is black -- not exactly a recipe for electoral success in our country.

    Taken away? Won fair and square.

    Hillary had every advantage going in. Obama waged a rigorous, systematic campaign. Despite his charisma he could not have prevailed without the implementation of a disciplined, strategic campaign. Obama worked harder and smarter. Very simple and nothing to do with gender.

    Hillary has set feminism back decades (or centuries) with this whining. Feminists are not supposed to whine!! I don't think Hillary is a feminist but she attaches the label to herself.

    Sadly she fits the stereotype of the sour grapes poor loser who never learned the ropes on the playground and grew up to be a carping harpie.

    This is my assessment as a feminist.

  •  "The voters have stolen my nomination." (18+ / 0-)

    --SNL

    How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

    by rhetoricus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:42:47 AM PDT

  •  I can't stand the view (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, OR indie

    I know I'm not their target demographic, but I don't' see shows like this thriving for that much longer.

    The definition of insanity is voting the same way and expecting a different result. I'm talking to you FL,OH, KY, WV!

    by Shhs on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:43:04 AM PDT

  •  I feel the same way. (11+ / 0-)

    As an "under $50K hard working white female over 35 (but with higher education - so, sorry about that) I was saying the exact same thing last night.  She does not represent feminism, or what I grew up understanding that to mean.  By crying out - or having her surrogates cry out - that she has been denied the nomination because the whole thing is a "boy's club" sets the fight for equality back.  Look, I am sure I make less than my male counterpart.  But not that much less.  And I continue to fight quietly against sexism by example, not by shouting that things are unfair.  

    Care for your neighbor. Care for your country. Elect Barack Obama.

    by Texanomaly on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:43:09 AM PDT

    •  there seems to be a generation divide. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boadicea, WildcatPatriot, Texanomaly

      My wife came of age in the 60's (as did I). That puts her in the key demographic of 60+ white females. The visible feminists of that generation made a lot of noise and protested to get attention for the cause. Angry white women were in the news and on the best-seller lists. When the ERA was defeated the anger continued to simmer. My wife has identified with Hillary since 1993, and felt that the 2008 cycle was the time for a woman to win the White House. The seeds were planted in the 60's and Hillary has tapped into this constituency.

      For these women, supporting Hillary is more than politics as usual... it is deeply felt identity politics, recalling their early experience of the feminist cause. Obama must address this directly and urgently to have a chance of bringing them around.

      •  I do understand that it was a different time, (0+ / 0-)

        however - IMHO - the very way in which she has appeared to me and many others during this campaign seems to undercut all that for what was fought.  
        There is no argument from me that it is time for a woman to win the White House.  But smearing a fellow democrat badly, goal-post-moving, and cries of unfairness are so far doing nothing to move the feminist cause further.  I may not be right on this, but that is what I believe.  And I do think the barriers were there to be shattered by almost ANY female candidate.  Does it help that this particular woman is ready to give up her dignity and her credibility?  To what end, for the way Senator Clinton has done it?    

        Care for your neighbor. Care for your country. Elect Barack Obama.

        by Texanomaly on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  this is exactly... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Texanomaly

          why my wife is now reluctantly getting used to the idea of backing Obama. Unlike some of the die-hard supporters we read about, she thinks it's wrong for Hillary to try to change the rules agreed upon at the beginning, and she is very disappointed in the rhetoric from the Clinton campaign. She no longer thinks Hillary can or should win. But there is still some grieving to do for the dream.

          •  I agree, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            uffdalib

            and I grieve too - it would be thrilling to see a woman giving the State of the Union, walking with authority down the proverbial halls of power - but on terms which are 100% justified and morally sound.  I am saddened that cannot happen this year.  But it will happen, and not in the distant future.  
            Peace, and I wish you and your wife the best.    

            Care for your neighbor. Care for your country. Elect Barack Obama.

            by Texanomaly on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:49:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  It's what I've been claiming for a few weeks. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dmsilev, boofdah, beltane, RadioGirl

    Because Hillary has a feminine names and is referred to using feminine pronouns, and because Obama has a masculine name and is referred to using masculine pronouns, any discussion about the two of them is sexist.

    That is the only way to achieve the level of martyrdom and victimhood claimed by these so-called "feminists."

    If these people continue to represent feminism, they will ensure that it comes to mean nothing more than a bad joke - since that's what they've turned themselves into.

    "2009" The end of an error

    by sheddhead on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:44:05 AM PDT

  •  honestly we know they're being irrational, but... (4+ / 0-)

    shouldn't we make a better effort to reach out to those Clinton supporters who feel burned?

    Shouldn't we focus on how Obama's campaign will be great for women? This is a guy with two daughters, and statistically speaking that has an impact on how politicians deal with equality issues.

    It's not a campaign. It's a movement. Will you stand up?

    by danthrax on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:44:11 AM PDT

    •  They see that as pandering. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lauramp, Azdak, LynneK

      Seriously, according to some of them, Obama is being sexistly condescending by refusing to call for Clinton to drop out. I can only imagine that's much worse than the sexist condescension of calling for her to drop out.

    •  I agree with you...but.... (0+ / 0-)

      It's virtually impossible to really reach folks who are responding irrationally out of fear, anger, and seething resentment with rational outreach.

      So how do we break through that?  Because no matter how inspiring and good Obama is, this particular subset of Clinton supporters is invested in seeing him as a sexist, black thief.  No matter how reasonable and welcoming we are at reaching out, we are perceived as just trying to dupe the rightful inheritors of the presidency out of what was "theirs."

      So it's a national psychodrama about racism and resentment and fear being played out endlessly – but not between Dems and Republicans.  It's between Dems.
      It's like we're all being told to just stay buckled up during an extended, never-ending car wreck.  

      ...just another hooligan from the Dalai clique

      by RadioGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:58:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boadicea, danthrax, Neon Mama, LynneK

      What needs to be focused on is the alternative choice. JOHN MCCAIN. The same John McCain who calls his wife a "cunt" for putting on makeup..this coming from a man who wears lipstick in his TV appearances, but I digress.

      The alternative is electing a candidate dead set on overturning Roe vs Wade. Set on installing a secure conservative majority in the supreme court. A candidate who has alligned himself to lick the boots of those that promote abstinence over safe sex. A program and ideology that has lead to an upturn in sexually transmitted disease amongst teens and unwanted pregnancy. Who's most often the victim left to deal with raising the child of an unwanted pregnancy? The woman. That's right. So, all that said one would think that given the choice between the man raised by a single woman, who's family is comprised of 3/4's women, and who has secured the endorsement of NARAL that it'd be a pretty good bet the candidate would at least have women's progressive agenda in mind or the man that has belittled women, left his spouse to marry up and done absolutely nothing politically or policy-wise to advance the cause of women there would be only one clear choice? I fail to see the logic of anyone siding with John McCain, but women? With his record?

  •  As a woman and Obama supporter, I say, "Amen!" (4+ / 0-)
  •  Shorter Joy Behar: (17+ / 0-)

    Democracy sucks when the majority of voters disagrees with me.

    My candidate voted to ban the use of cluster bombs on kids. Did yours?

    by clonecone on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:45:04 AM PDT

  •  "A man took it away from a woman" (15+ / 0-)

    Exactly what I haven't like about the Clinton campaign from even before the start. She has acted as if the Democratic nomination was hers. Her property. Her right. Her "entitlement". Well all I can do is repeat the "writing on the wall", "Mene Mene, Tekel, Parsin". (roughly, you have been measured and found lacking) Daniel 5:25

    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

    by irate on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:45:07 AM PDT

    •  Clinton lost it more than Obama took it away (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irate

      Clinton Campaign made many errors. IMHO the most critical ones were:

      - dismissal of grass roots and progressive community (this showed clearly that Clinton Campaign felt we were unimportant)

      - continued refusal to understand the arithmetic realities (denying the problems they got into since early February)

      - dismissal of many states (that actually followed the rules) where Clinton had lost as unimportant while at the same time whining about disenfranchising FL & MI (hipocrisy at its best)

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:06:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and last but not least, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution

        continuing to fight the eventual winner, attack and smear him merely to assuage her own hurt feelings.

        CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

        by irate on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:29:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Math is so very sexist n/t (5+ / 0-)

    The definition of insanity is voting the same way and expecting a different result. I'm talking to you FL,OH, KY, WV!

    by Shhs on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:46:43 AM PDT

  •  People see the world as they want to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, LynneK, beltane

    I remember the end of the first Survivor episode one of the "anal ysts" who was commenting on how they picked the self described fat _____ at the end.

    "I knew they would never pick a woman."

    Well, lets count.  7 people voted.  3 gave reasons to vote for the man, 3 gave reasons to vote for the woman, and the 7th vote flipped a coin and the man won.

    Obvious sexism!!!

    I get it.  Women of my generation had a stake in Clinton because of her gender.

    Now, get out a calculator, do the math, and get over it.

    And women broke for Clinton much more than men broke for Obama anyway.

    Sure there are sexists and racists out there, but the Clinton campaign will go down in history as having blown a 3-1 lead in a 7 game series.  She lost because of things she said and did.  She should have won, but her wounds were self inflicted. They were deep and numerous.

    "We will now proceed to construct the socialist order."

    by 7November on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:47:08 AM PDT

  •  Barack is not a sexist (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, Neon Mama, LynneK, OR indie

    Lots of women have  supported losers in thier lives,Bill Clinton  is a prime example of a man  that has treated his woman like dirt and i do not hear women complaining about this,Hilary is a prime example why women should not support her ,Even Naral came to an conclusion that Hilary is  part of the problem for women and not the solution  for women,She tried to make  Barack feel less of a man,i think Barack has been a gentlemen for the mess that he had too endure from Hilary,that Hilary brought too this nomination process,  

  •  Sorry HRC - It's Just Business (10+ / 0-)

    This isn't about you.  America is in deep trouble and we need the best leader for the executive branch we can lay our hands on.

    Obama is the better manager, and the better leader.

  •  And Hillary did all the yelling--no one (9+ / 0-)

    "yelled" at her, especially not Barack Obama.

    "Leave the gun. Take the cannoli." - Peter Clemenza

    by collardgreens on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:49:10 AM PDT

  •  Here's my question: (8+ / 0-)

    When is anyone gonna tell the truth about Hillary Clinton?

    The lies.  The distortions.  The attacks.  Financial shenanigans.  It is important in a historical sense for people to understand exactly why she lost, and not all this sour grapes nonsense from all these entitled people making inaccurate statements about what happened.

    "In the unlikely story that is America, there's never been anything false about hope." Barack Obama for President

    by Chi on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:51:58 AM PDT

  •  This mindset also disregards (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, LynneK, mayim

    the mere fact that she was being buried, at least until the hardball Republican approach was tried and the personal attacks on Obama began taking a toll.

    At that point, she began getting votes based not on her own appeal, but because she was the lesser of two evils in certain voters minds -- the patented Republican way to win an election.

    So she didn't have a damned thing taken away from her -- if anything, she was the one trying to do the "taking away" on a basis that had no integrity.

    The Republican Party: Reinventing government, the same way they reinvented New Orleans

    by QuestionableSanity on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:52:17 AM PDT

  •  Meet the New Clinton Myth (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyScott, boofdah, beltane

    If she concedes the nomination (which I doubt) she will still claim the popular vote from Michigan and Florida (even though both primaries were fatally flawed -- Michigan having no one else on the Ballot) and the Popular vote from Puerto Rico (which isn't a State in the Union), and say She Won the Democratic Primary but a Man took it away!

    She's positioning herself for 2012 and her surrogates will do everything in their power to kneecap Obama in 2008. If Obama manages to win in 2008 she will become a festering sore in Obama's side for his first time. Much like Joe Lieberman is today for the Democratic Party.

    •  Time = Term (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, Neon Mama

      Only had a single Venti Latte this morning. Need more caffeine.

    •  I hope she isn't able to kneecap him. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      discocarp, beltane, Larry Madill

      America can't afford John McCain as President, even for one term.

      I am hoping Hillary and Bill are not THAT power-hungry to see the damage they will do, and the deaths they will indirectly cause via McCain's warmongering, as a result of causing Obama to lose in November for their own egos and political gain.

      •  Luckily, her efforts only seem to work (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah

        ... in states like Kentucky or West Virginia that are going red anyway. The only place I think she could do some damage is Pennsylvania and Ohio where you have Blue Cities at the corners and Red Trailer Parks in between. Michigan could be a problem if she wants to try and argue that Michigan was disenfranchised the first time. But I can't picture Michigan willfully voting for John McCain.

        •  The whole "disenfranchised" meme (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larry Madill

          is something I find utterly idiotic. If the voters in Michigan and Florida were "disenfranchised", it wasn't because of any of the Democratic candidates. The voters of those states were "disenfranchised" by the Democratic Committees of their own states, who knew the rules and the consequences for breaking those rules, yet violated the rules anyway. If you can't follow the rules, you don't get to play the game.

          "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi -9.38/-6.26

          by LynneK on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:03:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  2012 not happening for her (3+ / 0-)

      Sorry, but if Hillary costs the Democrats this election, she will be remembered as the villain of the decade. She would start her campaign in 2012 with limited financial backing and little institutional support. She will be a reviled figure in Democratic politics, respected only by her shrinking clique of rich old white women. Time is not on her side.

      I agree that she is a festering sore on the party. It's up to the voters of New York to do something about it.

      The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

      by beltane on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:58:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is she doesn't understand that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beltane

        The Clinton's have tunnel vision. All they see is a way to power and nothing else. They don't see that Bill's already damaged the legacy of his Presidency and Hillary's already earned the scorn of the Progressive Movement.

        They think they'll be able to spin and bob their way out of it, or forge some new Democratic Coalition consisting of Bigots, Old Women, and Republicans. It isn't out of the realm of possibility, but that is not a Democratic Party I want anything to do with.

        We've had Eight years of Republican Rule, we don't need four more years of Republican Lite.

  •  Took it away from? Hello? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xynz, theran, boofdah, LynneK, mayim, Gut Check

    Really, isn't that a sort of dynastic claim?  the idea that any one individual or candidate "had" something that was "taken" from them?   The political process selects from an enormous pool, not from among members of any one family.

  •  what exactly did he "take away" from her? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, LynneK, beltane

    Was it hers at the beginning?  No.  She certainly thought it was.  She was wrong.

    In fact, it was precisely BECAUSE her campaign thought it was already hers, that she LOST.  

    She didn't lose something she had.  She just lost.

    To a better candidate.  To a better campaign.

    Get over it, Hills.  Life will go on.

    (Although, Bill should be put on a 24-hour suicide watch)  Just kidding.


    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! - President Merkin Muffley

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:53:09 AM PDT

    •  He took away her inevitability (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Triscula

      (Although, Bill should be put on a 24-hour suicide watch)  Just kidding.

      Do you mean you were kidding about him contemplating suicide or putting him on watch?

      "Never have so few taken so much from so many for so long."

      by londubh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:06:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They took it from the first AA candidate! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, Oregonian Optimist

    Just because Hillary is the first electable woman to run, does not mean she should get it just because.

    And neither should Obama get the nomination just because he is the first electable AA candidate.

    Hillary had lousy luck, being in the path of Obama who came from nowhere to win.

    Inspiration and hope are what people want and he delivered that. She is competent and wonky blah blah and that is nice but dull. Not her fault, just the dynamic of this election, Obama changed it and it was her bad luck to run this year.

    I guess he should drop out and let her have it and then he can be next. Nice if it worked that way but there is no guarantee that he could win in another election becuase there could be some golden GOP Obama in the mix.

    •  Look at any Olympic competition (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karenc13

      And see how many times a hardworking favorite just has a bit of bad luck and is denied the Gold medal, sometimes any medal at all. Michelle Kwan, perhaps the greatest figure skater to never win an Olympic gold. Or horse racing, where the awesome Alydar ran second in all three triple crown races to the even better Affirmed - what luck that they were born the same year.

      Or for that matter, John Edwards, who would also make a terrific President, and happened to be in the path of both Obama and Clinton.

      She is still a great woman and will be a major part of American history. I hope she recovers and finds another way to use her leadership to benefit the country.

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:25:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Man took it away from a Woman (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RemarkablyChanel

    Before she hurt herself and all the folks around her.

    Thank you.

    I wouldn't mind if a Woman took away something destructive from a Man too.

    Clinton Math: Negative $31,000,000 - Now take that to the bank.

    by griz4u on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:54:44 AM PDT

  •  Agree with much of that, but not: (4+ / 0-)

    Thus, we should not be looking at Barack Obama as an African American or a man, or Hillary Clinton as a woman. Instead, if we truly wanted to be equals, if we truly valued the goals of the civil rights movement and of feminism, we should be looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as just human beings.

    No. We definitely should look at Obama as an African-American man and Clinton as a white woman. That's not all we should see in them, but refusing to look at them as they are is an insult. They're not just human beings, they're human beings with certain backgrounds and perspectives, ethnicities and genders. I don't think the goal of the civil rights movement or the feminist movement is to deny one's race or sex.

    I want someone to quote me in their sig line - Trix

    by GussieFN on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:55:20 AM PDT

    •  I think we basically agree. (4+ / 0-)

      What I am saying is that we cannot look at Obama and Clinton as just a man or a woman, respectively.  We have to consider their merits and their character, which of course does include their background, their life story, their perspectives, etc.  

      But if you only judge Obama or Clinton as having won just because he is a man and she is a woman, or because he is black and she is white, then you are being discriminatory, in my opinion.

      •  Oh, definitely. I know you didn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Delaware Dem

        mean what I objected to: that we can't consider race or gender at all. You just had a 'just' in the wrong place! It's an issue that's dear to my heart, though, so I always try to respond. (I actually meant to write, 'I know that's not your intent' in my comment, but got lazy.)

        I want someone to quote me in their sig line - Trix

        by GussieFN on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:12:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So, am I xx-deficient? (4+ / 0-)

    I do NOT feel this way. Feminism is supposed to honor freedom of choice. This reminds me somewhat of the abuse stay at home mothers took for their choice, until a correction to that overreaction set in. In the minds of the voters, Obama is the better candidate. To Ms Behar, ask yourself - if Hillary had run a different campaign, if the country weren't sick to death of Bush and desperately needing a 180 turn, if Obama hadn't been an unusually charismatic candidate...is it really just about their respective genders? And (sorry, if this offends) - how does this attitude help the women's movement?

  •  Lack of context of these arguments (8+ / 0-)

    When this primary race started,with its rules,with its peculiar sorts of preferences as to how the contest would be done, there were 7 older white guys and two Others. 9 Democrats vying for the nominations. Most of them, at least 7 of them IMHO would have done a fine job if they won in November.

    But it got down to the quality of the campaign, and in that 3 broke away from the back and then the last "white guy" standing Edwards was out by Super Tuesday. The two others were making all the news deciding all the important issues to be debated controlling the media interest. America got interested.

    That was a huge win and a landmark for democrats and America right there.

    The process has been to suck the air out of the republicans becase the real changes were on our side, our ideas, our candidates.

    The Clinton campaign had a huge lead, and they couldn't keep it. Worse in the head to heads nationally they were losing the more they campaigned,the more it devolved to their long term hard core supporters with a bit of Appalachian mavericks thrown in.

    HRC has not improved her standing, she has stalled essentially. The candidate who fought the long, steady and well crafted national  campaign caught up and took the lead. That is all it is. It is a given:
    that we will have a landmark candidate and a landmark campaign. It is now up to HRC to decide her role in supporting that campaign.

    Every Democrat out there has flaws. We don't obsess about them endlessly or throw the flaws in their faces, we help them up and keep our cause moving forward.

    by Pete Rock on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:57:41 AM PDT

  •  You can't LOSE something you never EARNED! n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, Reel Woman, Neon Mama, llamaRCA

    "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

    by Vote On Paper on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:59:08 AM PDT

  •  No, I took it away from Hillary. (10+ / 0-)

    As did many women (and men, and young voters, and "hard working white voters," and Native Americans, African Americans, etc., etc.)  

    To be more to the point, nothing was taken away.  It wasn't Hillary's in the first place, and both her voting record in the Senate and actions on the campaign trail combined removed any sense of entitlement in the minds of the majority of voters, pledged delegates and super delegates.

    Enough is enough.  As a white woman, I'd be more than happy to vote for another white woman as President in my lifetime.  This simply isn't the woman for me.  

    Let it go.

    Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein (-6.5/-7.33)

    by pidge not midge on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:59:55 AM PDT

  •  This race was Clinton's to lose. Nothing (5+ / 0-)

    was taken from anyone.

  •  Their sense of entitement is baffling. (9+ / 0-)

    It's shameful that Obama is having to handle Hillary and her supporters with kid gloves lest they be "disrespected". Wasn't it Hillary who called politics a tough business and said if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?

    Don't Legitimize Fox News.
    "Democrats have the heart to care."

    by jeepdad on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:00:49 AM PDT

    •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jeepdad, GN1927, LynneK

      Wasn't it Hillary who called politics a tough business and said if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?

      And she's lucky Obama doesn't think like that or she would have been crushed at one of the (many) chances in this primary (like tuzla).

      To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

      by discocarp on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:16:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I still recall arguing with friends... (4+ / 0-)

    ...who were going to vote for Nader in 2000...

    I would like to appeal here for more understanding and forbearance.

    I am not and was not an Obama or a Clinton supporter; my choices were Edwards/Kucinich; I'm too far to the left of both to truly like either Obama or Clinton.

    I have been mounting what I hope is a reasonable campaign on TalkLeft (a blog for which I used to have the greatest respect) to convince Clinton deadenders that, at the end of the day, they should vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee, because the alternative (possibly) means more deaths, more wars, etc.

    Our duty to fix our country ought to transcend our personal issues.

    The point is not that Obama is better than Clinton (I genuinely don't believe that); it is that we cannot risk four more years of Republican governance.

    The Clinton supporters need our moral support to find their way back.

    OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

    by Lupin on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:01:11 AM PDT

  •  Joy Behar IS a comedienne (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sanuk

    who has a gig on an exceedingly vapid show.

  •  Well said (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, LynneK

    One of your best DD and a point I have been trying hard to make with my own friends. You cannot "take away" something that was never had.  These same people who wonder why I point to the Clinton camp and tell them they act entitled.

  •  You know who ACTUALLY "took it away from her?" (6+ / 0-)

    Voters who don't trust Hillary because she helped George W. Bush invade and occupy Iraq... costing thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

    That's the cost of playing politics with people's lives.

    So excuse me if I don't weep with Joy Behar for Hillary Clinton, supporter of the Iraq War.

    JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

    by chumley on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:04:18 AM PDT

  •  Gender a negative? A positive? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elfling, theran, LynneK

    Clinton and her surrogates have recently suggested that latent sexism is the best explanation for the fact Obama is on the verge of securing the nomination.  Existing exit poll data actually sheds light on this question.

    Gender can play either a positive role or a negative one ... loyalty vs animosity.  The exit polling asks the questions whether gender was a factor in the voter’s choice and breaks the answer down further by identifying the voter as either a Clinton or Obama supporter.  

    For example, if a voter indicates that gender was an important factor in their vote and they voted for Clinton, that means that gender was positive  for her; on the other hand, if that voter was an Obama supporter, then gender was a negative factor for her.  

    Here are the Kentucky results:

    negative 3.0% & positive 12.6% = net positive of 9.6%

    Clinton’s sexism charge was clearly not true in Kentucky.

    Here are the Oregon results:

    negative 7.5% & positive 9.5% = net positive of 2.0%

    Again, Clinton’s sexism charge was not true in Oregon.

    Here are Pennsylvania results:

    negative 5.6% & positive 14.4% = net positive of 8.8%

    Lastly, let us consider Georgia, a state that handed Obama a large victory based in part on a large black population.

    negative 9.7% & positive 7.6% = net negative of 2.1%

    In Georgia, where Obama won big, the slight negative gender factor for Clinton was inconsequential.

    Cumulatively, Clinton’s positives based on gender outweighed her negatives.  In other words, her gender helped rather than hurt her without any significant fluctuation on the issue from one state to the next.  

    In summary, Clinton’s claim that sexism has determined this race is wholly without merit.  In fact, gender loyalty outweighs gender animosity.

  •  A WASP took it away from a Greek. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, Neon Mama, LynneK

    Yes, I'm still smarting from the 1992 election, when I was backing Paul Tsongas in the primaries.  Why are the Clintons working so hard to keep Greeks down?

    That argument makes about as much sense...

    A conservative is just a liberal who hasn't needed a second chance yet.

    by Larry McAwful on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:06:10 AM PDT

  •  This whining is a huge step back for women (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    applegal, Isara, Dartagnan, Neon Mama, LynneK

    Clearly Hillary has done a lot to pave the way for future female candidates... But, this type of talk threatens that progress in my opinion.  

    The rules apply to all candidates in the same way.  Hillary simply came up short, to suggetst anything else is an insult to women everywhere.  

    Falsely claiming the nomination was "stolen" from her, or as Rep. Schultz argued last night on MSNBC that Hillary was being denied the nomination despite the fact that she will win the popular vote (math notwithstanding apparently), Hillary--and her supporters--are arguably saying that women need special rules to compete.

    Obviously that is not true.

    •  Who made HRC a rep for all women? (0+ / 0-)

      How is that "progressive Democrats" who are supporting a progressive, feminist Democrat -- Obama -- can be writing as if a few disgruntled HRC supporters who will vote for McCain can set back women?

      If enough of those women vote for McCain to put him into office, THAT would be a step back for women. But if women are simply presenting their point of view about the primary, then vote for Obama in November, why would THAT have any effect on women as a whole?

      Are McCain supporters going to discriminate any more against women than they normally would because they're wingnuts just because some HRC supporters whined? No.

      Are HRC supporters going to discriminate any more against women because some HRC supporters whined? No.

      So, the rhetorical implication is that OBAMA SUPPORTERS are going to discriminate more against women and women in politics because some HRC supporters whined.

      Can that possibly be true? I don't think so.

      If it is true, then I think maybe Obama has to emphasize that he's running to be a good and kind president of the United States, not to damage the interests of women who happen to hold what he and we believe to have incorrect views about the primary.

  •  Interesting blog at Huff Post (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    temptxan, julibug

    I don't like the author's title but she makes some good points.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  •  Her war vote was the foundation for her defeat (5+ / 0-)

    It gave Obama an immediate issue on which to base his entry into the race. For those who saw the war as the primary issue in this election, Hillary could not generate any level of enthusiasm among new voters and young people because she always had to defend her war vote. Obama had a starting point that positioned his candidacy as transcending race. He was not the black candidate. He was the anti-war candidate. Of course, he has turned out to be much more than that, but the war is what initially defined both candidates.

    Hillary approached the nomination fight as a party regular, locking up the traditional donor base, and mapping out the same big state strategy that has led to General Election losses in the last two presidential elections. The media helped her in the portrayal of her candidacy as inevitable, highlighting polls showing her twenty points ahead of her closest rival. However, I knew very few rank and file Democrats who were particularly excited about the prospect of a Hillary nomination. The general reaction was, "I guess I'd vote for her, but I wish there was somebody else."

    All the smoke and mirrors about inevitability seemed to be working for Hillary  until Iowa, where the brilliance of the Obama strategy and the ineptitude of the Clinton campaign first started to show up. Obama had flooded the state with volunteers months before the caucuses. Whether the Clinton campaign's late arrival was due to arrogance or incompetence (or both), is not that important. What is important is that by the time they got to Iowa, they were so far behind that they found themselves in a three way battle that they not only didn't expect, but had no strategy for. That was when the wheels started to fall off.

    The war vote and the poor performance in Iowa set the stage for Hillary's defeat, but among the other contributing factors were:

    1. Arrogance - many of Hillary's initial miscalculations can be traced back to pure arrogance on the part of her campaign.
    1. The brilliance of the Obama campaign - Hillary's early positioning basically opened her playbook for all to see. The Obama campaign developed a strategy to counter her strategy, and by the time she figured out that she had been outmaneuvered, it was too late.
    1. Snipergate - Hillary had been able to skirt the legitimate issue of her own credibility until she was caught in the Snipergate lie. Her credibility came into question, and her campaign's "I misspoke" defense was transparently weak. The Snipergate lie led to closer examination of some of her other claims, exposing lies and exaggerations which had been used to prop up her "35 years of experience" mantra.
    1. Her transformation from the "competent and level headed" candidate to the  "I am desperate to be the nominee and I will do anything, and I mean anything,  to win" candidate. For every vote she picked up by appealing to fear and ignorance, she lost the respect of the broader cross section of the electorate.
    1. Obama is a brilliant, once in a generation candidate - I don't think this can be overstated. 75,000 to see a political speech in Oregon? Has anything like that EVER happened before?

    No one "took it away" from Hillary. The people decided that the decision was up to them, not the Washington insiders. The great irony here is that the Clinton machine would never have gotten started had it not been for the effect of another people powered candidacy: that of Ross Perot. Perot siphoned just enough votes from George Bush to give Bill the Presidency.

    So, what the people give, the people take away.

    •  Interesting thing about "snipergate" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Mama, LynneK

      My wife was leaning toward Clinton for quite awhile, but the lies about snipers in the Balkans really turned her off.  As for me, I just chalked it up to typical embellishment that people do when relating stories about their past.  But to my wife, it was a serious thing that fundamentally changed her opinion about Clinton.

      It's interesting how the same situation can influence people differently.

      I dropped her ballot off on Monday at the polling station in our hometown, and she told me later she voted for Obama.

  •  Clinton's new slogan: (7+ / 0-)

    "I'm in it to whine it."

    --------
    If it didn't piss you off, we wouldn't need the first amendment now, would we?

    by PBJ Diddy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:07:47 AM PDT

  •  What jersey am I wearing? (5+ / 0-)

    cuz I thought we were on the same team!

    The arguments for the sexism ruse...

    Hillary is the experienced candidate: Really?  Was it sexism that took out Biden, Dodd, and Richardson?

    OK, not using overall experience, how about the campaign?  Is it wrong to say she is running her campaign about as well as Bush is running the US?  Am I less of a feminist to notice?

    Hillary took all the scrutiny and heat early on:  Is this your first election?  ALL frontrunners get that treatment; consider it a compliment and move on.

    Hillary is assailed for her physical attributes; that can only be sexism:  Shall we replay the campaign coverage of Dennis Kucinich?

    Leadership is moving people to action.  No one, no one has demonstrated that ability on a par with Obama.  Not. Even. Close.  

    In a war for survival, let's go with our best and brightest in whatever gender, or race we can find 'em, so we can live to have these pettier arguments another day.

  •  perfect. (6+ / 0-)

    Equality does not entitle anyone to anything, except opportunity.  So just because a woman finally ran for President and was a serious contender for the job, does not mean she should have won that job.  Indeed, if you demand that Hillary Clinton be the nominee simply because she is a woman, you are acting sexist yourself, for you are demanding that Hillary be judged only as a woman, rather than as a person.

    "McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899)" - wikipedia.org

    by glutz78 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:08:10 AM PDT

  •  how quickly she forgets (0+ / 0-)

    The nomination was Clinton's to lose. And, I'm afraid, like the Democratic party we're so familiar with, she found a way to do it. There's nothing feminist about this—it's [patriarchal] politics as usual.

    Obama? Not so much.....

  •  Lead in FUNDRAISING (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ScienceMom, geejay, Neon Mama, LynneK, temptxan

    I was discussing the Obama/Clinton tossup with a friend of mine who is active in local Democratic Party politics.  I began reciting the standard litany of "ahead in delegates, ahead in state won..." and he cut me off.

    "Fundraising?" he asked.

    "Way ahead."

    "Oh, then he'll be the nominee.  The superdelegates know what's really important."

    Cynical, maybe, but true.

  •  BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ScienceMom, Isara, geejay, LynneK

    sorry for yelling....I've just reached my limit with the sexism charges.  50 yo white female, feminist here and have never been an HRC supporter.  But dammit, I'd vote for her if need be.

    "You don't make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies." -Yitzhak Rabin

    by juslikagrzly on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:10:43 AM PDT

  •  Channel that passion toward efforts to ratify the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK

    Equal Rights Amendment.

    Among the 15 states that have not ratified it are three associated with the candidates:  Arizona, Illinois and Arkansas.

    And three more are all that's needed.

  •  What a dorky thing to say! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK

    HRC lost my vote just as much as BHO earned it after JRE dropped out.

    My relationship with God is defined not by religion and ritual, but by attitude and action.

    by World Citizen on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:11:14 AM PDT

  •  She started out with every advantage.......... (6+ / 0-)

    and still lost. Nobody's fault but her own.

    Sometimes the magic works.......sometimes it doesn't

    by Unrepentant Liberal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:11:41 AM PDT

  •  The Hillary campaign was always blatantly (0+ / 0-)

    reverse-mysogynyst.

  •  The cries of sexism has made my blood boil (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK, ldvisavis

    Call me old fashioned, or making the mistake of taking MLK's words too literally, but .... I think people should vote for someone because they are the best candidate.  When they stray from that, then it starts getting into identity politics, which is the main reason why the democracy experiment in Iraq has been such a disaster:  Sunnis voted for Sunnis, Kurds voted for Kurds, Shi'ites split their votes between the "rich" Shi'ites and the "poor" Shi'ites (al Sadr).  Any party based on ideology got close to 0 votes.  So it came down to pure and simple identity politics.  Civil War became inevitable.  I think elections should be about ideas, and the character of the person running.  That's it.

    The feminist movement (well, the noisy people like Gloria Steinem who are the face of that movement, if not always representative of it) have now embarrassed themselves twice, all in service to the Clintons.  First, they defended Bill Clinton when it was clear he was having an inappropriate relationship with an intern working at the White House (wasn't this the kind of stuff they screamed about normally?), and now crying sexism because Hillary lost the election, when the only evidence we have is that people who voted on the basis of gender voted for Clinton.  Basically, the "feminist movement" is a bloody joke, and it will be hard for me to take them seriously, given how much they have sold out their values and common sense in the service of The Clintons.  Never mind how Obama wins back Clinton supporters.  I want to know what plan the feminist movement has of winning back liberal women like myself, absolutely disgusted with their tactics.  In the wake of Ted Kennedy's diagnosis this week, I demand an apology for this shrill untrue screed from the NY Chapter of NOW against Ted Kennedy.  It stings even more now than it did then.

    John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

    by beachmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:11:58 AM PDT

    •  Paleofeminism is, indeed, a ridiculous caricature (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bustacap, beachmom, Neon Mama, LynneK

      of itself these days.

      True Feminism simply says, "Judge on merits, not chromosomes" and most modern people do feel this way.  All of us being free to judge on merits is how we get the best human for the job.
       
      Regrettably, these Paleofeminist Clintonites seem to be advocating a return to the bad old days of judging on chromosomes again -- as long as XX wins this time!

      Please don't disavow the concept of feminism, which only means "equal opportunity," just because a handful of 50-somethings is still stuck in the Seventies and crying "Sexism!" at every woe that befalls them, while they themselves practise sexism vigorously.

      Clinton had her equal opportunity and blew it.  She didn't lose because of misogyny, she lost because of mistakes, mismanagement, misspending, misspeaking, and all around missing the mark.

      •  We need new leaders. I completely agree (0+ / 0-)

        with your definition of "true feminism", and believe in it strongly.  But the reality is that the loud mouths of the feminist movement; the ones on TV; the ones whose op-eds get printed in big newspapers -- are the Gloria Steinems of the feminist world.  And, frankly, they don't represent my values.  And until we get more sane voices, the feminist movement will continue to get a bad rap for excesses and hypocrisy.

        John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

        by beachmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:30:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whoa, slow down here, Beachmon and Loquatrix. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          martydd

          To begin with, the "Paleofeminist" movement (is that meant to be belittling, or does it just come across that way?) was a widely diffused movement, carried out largely in local "consciousness raising" groups, in local organizations, in regional and national conferences/gatherings, and through scores and scores of small publications. It was in fact as much like the netroots as a movement could be, before the internet. Gloria Steinem and NOW had a valuable role, which I don't mean to discount, but they never represented more than one aspect of the movement.

          "The feminst movement" has not been disgraced by  anything Clinton's campaign or her supporters have done, because they don't represent the feminist movement. They represent themselves, and include some feminists. There are probably as many self-identified feminists supporting Obama as Clinton. Personally, I was supporting Edwards until I had to choose, and then I chose Obama.

          The sweeping judgements on feminism and even on women occuring in this thread and over at HuffPo are way out of line and leave this feminist steaming.

          How about criticizing Hillary and Hillary supporters by saying "Hillary" or "Hillary's supporters"?

          And by the way, what's this about:

          the only evidence we have is that people who voted on the basis of gender voted for Clinton.

          Are Obama's consistent leads among men purely coincidental? Hardly. This is not Obama's fault, but sexism has certainly been a factor in this race, as in any race in our current culture, since sexism still exists in the populace and most definitely in the media.

          That doesn't justify anyone voting for McCain. But it does contribute to the anger Hillary's supporter's feel.

      •  This language is unhelpful (0+ / 0-)

        The main point of the diary -- that Obama clearly won this race and HRC clearly took actions that made her lose it, and that no one stole anything -- is, in my opinion correct.

        But the way this diary is worded rhetorically pits older feminists and other traditional feminists against Obama in a way that I don't think Obama himself would approve of.

        First, I don't think that there is any real split in the party that Obama can't overcome. A handful of anecdotes about HRC supporters who plan to vote for McCain does not a groundswell make. I don't think any of my own relatives who are HRC supporters will vote for McCain.

        But, second, if Obama supporters go out of their way to call HRC supporters names, attack "paleofeminism," put down the concerns of feminists, etc., that's not going to be all that helpful to party unity.

        Obama himself is a great model to emulate. He tries to be kind and positive, and, even when he gets into trouble, it's often just because he's trying to empathize with his critics in language that ticks people off (e.g., the bitter gun owner comment).

        If we try to emulate him and his kindness and kind language, then I think that would be a much more effective remedy for any split that might exist than ridicule could be.

        •  Thank you, sclminc. I didn't see your (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sclminc

          response before I posted mine, but I completely agree with this:

          if Obama supporters go out of their way to call HRC supporters names, attack "paleofeminism," put down the concerns of feminists, etc., that's not going to be all that helpful to party unity.

          In addition, those of us feminists and have been here all along and are not going to desert Obama's campaign nevertheless should not have to listen to all of this dissing of feminism, nor watch how quickly some Kossacks slide into sexist caracatures of women they disagree with (whining, weak, petty, hysterical, victims, etc). That's not up to Obama's standards nor up to the standards of DKos at its best.

          •  Note, this is about language, not goals (0+ / 0-)

            There might be some fervent supporters of HRC in this thread, and if so, great, but I'm not one of them, and I understand that it's hard to write about all of this without sometimes pushing buttons and wording something in a way that ticks people off.

            I almost, for example, assumed (and maybe did assume in some places) that Delaware Dem. is a guy. I have no idea whether that's true.

            I know I've posted what I thought were pro-HRC comments that ticked HRC supporters off, because fervent HRC supporters found them to be condescending.

            But I think it would be a great goal if we could just try to think, "What, on a good, well-rested day, would Obama say?"

            We can't always do that, it won't always work, and sometimes a snarky comment is so much fun to make that we have to post it or we'll die, but, in general, it's better not to go out of our way to insult potential allies.

  •  History will judge it very differently (0+ / 0-)

    It will see the flaws in the campaign she led and it will see the flaws in the candidate herself.

    The complaints of people like Behar and Ferraro will be significant historical events only if Obama is undermined in the general election.

  •  Wow Joy Behar is being a total lunatic... (0+ / 0-)

    then again she's the one on the panel who wanted to ban Howard Stern...  kind of nutty.

  •  There's no Title IX (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, boadicea, DesertCat

    in governing the country.

  •  I read an interesting Op-ed in the (5+ / 0-)

    Globe and Mail, and the writer seems to feel this is more about the Generation of Baby boomers and their loss of power.  Without their vote the female over 50 majority a woman lost.  The Baby boom generation has always been the most powerful of the generations and they can't stand the thought that they are getting old and with this they have to pass on their power to the next generation.

    He says this is why these women feel so entitled to have Hillary the President and why they feel this is something stolen from them, becuase they can't exept their loss of power.

    •  I think you are onto something there. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kanuk, Catatonia, Neon Mama

      I told my mother a couple of weeks ago that this battle was generational, and that her generation (the baby boomer generation)'s time of governing is coming to an end, and that they had two Presidents, which is normal.

      It is now time for Generation X and Generation Jones to govern.  

      •  Which is fine with me (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Delaware Dem, Loquatrix, kanuk

        I'm a Boomer -- 55 years old, white, female, Obama supporter. The Boomer time is coming to an end; we've had a great run, and have really had the best of everything this country had to offer, not that we did nearly enough with what we were given, mind you.

        I do, however, have one grown child of whom I'm inordinately fond, and I desperately want new leadership to take charge of the many vital issues which need immediate attention.  I would like to go to my grave at least hopeful that my son and his children aren't going to have to live in a "Mad Max" world, thanks to us.

        If the Earth really were your mother, she would grab you with one rocky hand and hold you under water until you no longer bubbled. -- Kathleen Dean Moore

        by Catatonia on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:30:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The baby boomers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delaware Dem

      gave us Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for presidents . . .what does that say about that generation?

      "How can I go off and join FRELIMO, when I've got 9 more payments on the fridge?" Mrs. Conclusion Monty Python

      by Sansouci on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:26:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Two of the most self absorbed people ever to be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kanuk

        President.

        Baby Boomers are the "ME" Generation.  It is all about them and what they want, and it is exemplified in the Presidents elected from them.

        Now, I am speaking in generalities, and I know many many Baby Boomers who are not as I just described.

      •  You realize, don't you, (0+ / 0-)

        That Senator Obama is also part of the Baby Boomer generation? Not all Baby Boomers are self-absorbed, there are actually some of us who care more about helping others than about ourselves.

        "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi -9.38/-6.26

        by LynneK on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:53:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right, but... (0+ / 0-)

          (aside from the fact that Obama's on the very tail of the boom) no one's saying all boomers are self-obsessed, but that when they are the dominant force in electoral  politics, the choice in presidents is likely to reflect their values as a group. Not everyone likes chocolate, but choclate-sales reveal that people on average do. Not all boomers respond to self-obsessed partisans, but boomers on average did.

    •  Boomer Baby here, and I'm thrilled to let ... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharoney, Delaware Dem, Loquatrix, kanuk

      ... the next generation take the helm!

      I'm a white woman, 58 years young, with grown sons and a granddaughter. Hillary was never my first choice for the nomination. In fact, I was looking for ANY reason not to vote for her. My first choice was Edwards, and then Obama. I'm pleased with my final choice, and I'm confident that Obama will be the nominee.

      Hillary hasn't been denied anything because of her gender. I didn't make my decision to support other candidates because she is a woman, or because they were men. I made my choice because Hillary Clinton - as a person - is not someone I trust. Period.

      Having said that, I would have at least voted for her in the general, rather than see our beloved country suffer under the repressive yoke of the ReThuglicans for one second longer.

      "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? T Jefferson

      by TheCorkBoard on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:33:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is definitely in large part generational. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kanuk, nhDave

      I mean, find me a woman under 50 who is saying this Joy Behar sort of crap.  There simply aren't any!

      A huge part of the problem is that people in the Baby Boomer age group have grown accustomed to owning political power in this country, and a subset of them cannot abide the thought that Generation X is coming up and taking it.

      They actually don't want change, and Clinton is the candidate of the status quo.  It all fits together.  The fact that she's female just gives them a handy banner to stand under when the wider concepts at play -- the beginning of the end of the dominance of the Baby Boomer, for example -- don't fit into an easy one-word slogan like "Sexism!!!" does.

      •  You are right. It sounds a whole (0+ / 0-)

        lot better to say Hillary lost because she was treated with sexism from the media and Obama supporters, than to admit the loss of power that the baby boomers have had for so long.

  •  Bravo, bravo, bravo n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  How very selfish and childish (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama, LynneK

    Winning a primary is not taking it away - it is winning, plain and simple.  The voters spoke.

    I am deeply ashamed of the Democrats currently trying to tear apart the party along gender lines out of petty anger over losing.

    As I've said in other comments, any Democrat who now chooses to work against Mr. Obama out of petty spite is not a Democrat at all.  No genuine Democrat would help put McSame in office, allowing him and the Republicans four or eight more years of damaging our nation, its reputation and its values.  Any Democrat who does that will have blood on their hands.

    And any WOMAN who would do that will have only herself to thank if McSame gets elected and gets the opportunity to load the Supreme Court with even more fundamentalist zealots who are bent on destroying our secular foundations and forcing biblical morality on every American, and afraid to check King Bush's power and stand up for the Constitution.

    Get a clue, HRC supporters.  Your candidate lost.  Grow the fuck up.  

    That, of course, does not apply to her sensible supporters who've realized she lost and are ready to come together as good Democrats to support our nominee.  Those people can hold their heads high.

  •  Joy Behar... (0+ / 0-)

    Culture Icon.  

    Talk about sexist.

    -6.5, -7.59. John McSame - running for Bush's third term. We can't afford it.

    by DrWolfy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:16:05 AM PDT

  •  don't blame Joy Behar (8+ / 0-)

    Blame Sen Clinton for creating an atmosphere where large numbers of her confused supporters think she actually won the popular vote (gee, I wonder where they got that crazy idea??).  By continually spreading this dishonest and disingenuous misinformation, Sen Clinton is setting up a dynamic where her supporters will naturally conclude that the nomination was taken from her by Sen Obama via unfair rules and Super-delegates (who, don't jah know, are mostly MEN - harumph!)

    Besides pushing that meme once again last night that she's won more votes than "any democrat in history", she also took the opportunity in her victory speech to repeat that she's determined that every vote counts in FL and MI, and that she won't stand for voters being disenfranchised.  By continuing to falsely imply that Sen Obama doesn't want their votes to count, Hillary is making it that much more difficult for him to win the voters of FL and MI in the Fall.  And she'll do it all with a smug "what? li'l ole me?" grin as she pretends to wish Obama well in the general election.

    What is she really hoping to accomplish here?  It should be quite obvious to everyone that inflaming her supporters against Barack at this late date is merely the first phase in Hillary's run for 2012.

    •  she's backing the nation into a corner (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      This is beginning to look very worrisome. I was gladdened to hear that even David Gergen has been saying she has to stand aside now, for the good of the party.

      "They're telling us something we don't understand"
      General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

      by subtropolis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:47:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WE are ALL responsible (0+ / 0-)

      for how we contribute to the dialogue, through action or acquiesence.

      A great example: I caught the tail end of David Gergen on CNN suggesting Hillary should stand up and say she does not want the racist vote--that it isn't what Democratic values are about.

      We need voices on our public airwaves who can offer intellectually honest debate, scrutiny, and context--not just to babble and parrot spin.

      Obama won the nomination the old-fashioned way--he earned it.

  •  Yes, we feel it was stolen and that will cost the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pumpkinlove

    general election.

    It does not matter how hard Hillary tries to get her supporters to rally behind Obama, the fact that it was stolen will never let us do that.

    In fact there will be many who will seek revenge with both edges of the sword.

    They will vote for McCain.

    Enjoy yourself between now and November.

    Four more dark years are coming and it was all avoidable.

    •  Wow. How pathetic you are. (8+ / 0-)

      You are an unprincipled sexist since Hillary winning is all that matters to you.  Indeed, since Hillary will not be the nominee, you are willing to allow many sons and daughters to die just to satisfy your disappointment.

      That is despicable, and you are a horrible evil disgusting person.  

      •  I didn't say I was going to do anything. I am (0+ / 0-)

        like the Oracle at Delphi.

        I am simply predicting the future for you.

        What is going to happen is as inevitable as gravity.

        I am not the one who had any part in it.

      •  "Pathetic," "unprincipled," "evil," "disgusting" (0+ / 0-)

        I really disagree with the idea of HRC supporters voting for McCain in the fall because they're mad about Obama losing, and I'm not sure that, news articles aside, that that's a bigger phenomenon now than in the past.

        Certainly, there were probably some Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000, for example, simply because they thought Gore was annoying.

        But: imagine that you were a loyal progressive Democrat who really loved HRC a little too much and saw her as Princess Leia, then saw a bunch of Daily Kos people trash her with the harshest rhetoric imaginable day after day.

        We think, and I believe rightly so, that HRC supporters have said much nastier, more objectionable things about Obama, but there's plenty of nasty, personal anti-HRC name calling right here on Daily Kos.

        So imagine there's an HRC supporter who's still furious at Obama -- but actually engaged enough that (assuming the poster isn't a Republican campaign troll) s/he comes here and goes to the trouble of posting a response in this thread.

        Maybe a really idea-based, kind, calmly worded response could at least take the edge of that individual's anger. But, if I were that individual, and I saw people responding  to some extent with rational arguments, but to a noticeable extent with name-calling and other putdowns, that would make it very hard for me to support Obama.

        If people are, say, generals in Myanmar holding up ad for cyclone victims, and you know there's absolutely no hope whatsoever of changing their evil ways, maybe then it's cool to call them "pathetic" to their face.

        But, unless you know a poster is a paid Republican shill, why use that kind of language on a person who seems, on the face, just to be an angry Democrat with views that you happen to disagree with?

    •  So, it's the (6+ / 0-)

      "I'll hold my breath until I turn blue and they will all be sorry," ploy.

      Most Hillary supporters are real democrats and will vote for Barack. And the "Hillary or the stake," crowd aren't going to be a large enough group to throw the election.

      We women are smarter than that.  

      "It's the bottom of the ninth and the rookie is pointing at the bleachers in center field.' --Stroszek, Dkos

      by kpardue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:25:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can you explain? (5+ / 0-)

      At what point and by what device was it stolen?  

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Ghandi

      by Triscula on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:26:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was stolen by the Media making a Rock Star out (0+ / 0-)

        of this guy and never spending a second looking into his background.

        The race started out with 8 men lined up to try and prevent one woman from becoming President.

        After she had knocked off all of them but one, they raised that one to Deity status and now you guys are stuck with him warts and all.

        Unfortunately it will cost the Democrats the White House.

        •  background (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neon Mama, Fixed Point Theorem

          I'm pretty sure everyone's been digging into his background. That's what political advisers, special interest groups, etc. do.

          So, because there hasn't been much found means people haven't been doing their job? What were you expecting to find?

          Clinton, on the other hand, has a whole gold mine of things to exploit. We know about many of them already, but how much do you want to bet that they would all be used against her in the general.

          Frankly, between the two, I much prefer my candidate's baggage over yours.

          I can haz sound economic policy?

          by Isara on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:54:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Um...what? (5+ / 0-)

          There have been numerous stories about his background. Frankly, his background has been a particular point of fascination for the media.  Furthermore, while there was initial good will and gentle treatment from the media that all ended after February.  Since then it's been one bullshit 'scandal' after another: Flagpins, bittergate, bowling scores, Rev Wright, Farrakahn, etc.  That's without mentioning the various email and whisper campaigns designed to paint him as 'the scary black man' or the 'secret muslim'.  Look, if Obama looks like a rock start to you perhaps it's because he's really, really appealing to a lot of people.  What's preventing Clinton from creating that sort of appeal for herself?  You might find the answer in the kitchen sink.

          This was her race to lose.  She was cast as inevitable by the media and she didn't pull it off.  No one stole anything from her.  She's a grown woman who lost, just like the other candidates lost, by not getting enough delegates.

          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Ghandi

          by Triscula on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:11:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And all last year (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rian90, Fixed Point Theorem

          she was the Goddess -- but she proved by her campaign strategy that she was fallible. Meanwhile, there was a candidate that was different than Politics as Usual, that was bringing new people into the fold and even getting Republicans to take a second look since they were stuck with a lackluster field.

          Here's a question -- if Obama had not been in the field, if it had been instead John Edwards (who also had a platform that went beyond Politics as Usual) who had defeated Clinton, would you still say that the nomination was "stolen" from her? How can something that she never had possession of be stolen?

          "Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher

          by Cali Scribe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:32:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Candidates (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Darmok

          The race started out with 8 men lined up to try and prevent one woman from becoming President.

          In my (40-something, female) eyes, the race started out with eight candidates lined up to try and prevent another candidate (the frontrunner) from becoming President. Same as every other Presidential primary.

        •  No way was HRC treated as badly as Kerry in '04 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Darmok

          Remember the swiftboating crap which was total lies, yet it was on cable night after night after night?  The media aired the crap, and then the newspapers slowly debunked it all, so that by the end of August the media elite knew it was crap.  Did they make a big deal at the time that it was lies?  Nope.  I found that to be patently unfair.  But you know what?  I would never use the media's treatment of Kerry to say the election was stolen.  Instead I would cite shenanigans that went down in Ohio.  That is the difference.  That is what stolen means.  As in stealing votes by suppressing the vote using methods like vote caging or not enough machines or outright fraud.  That is why I am highly irritated by your argument.  You can give the opinion that HRC was treated unfairly (for which I will completely disagree; if she were not a Clinton, she would have been forced out of this primary a long time ago), but your assertion that it was "stolen" is an outright lie backed up by nothing.  And don't even try to bring Florida or Michigan into it:  Hillary didn't give a damn when those states were stripped of delegates at the time -- it was only when she started hunting for votes and delegates that it suddenly became some large "cause" for her.

          John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

          by beachmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I have heard less about her.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah, Darmok

          Other than a few comments here and there, they have talked a lot more about him and his 'mistakes' than hers. The only ones about her that really had traction were when she did something stupid..like make up the sniper story.

          How can you blame Obama for her mistakes?

          Of course, the media concentrated on Farrakhan, Wright, a Muslim school, African father, a corrupt Chicago dude, a real estate deal, lack of support from white voters...not true all over the country, and 'pretty speeches with no substance.'

          The PEOPLE made Obama a rock star...not the media. They were the ones who filled his rallies, in spite of Wright and the other 'rumors'. And the last I heard, it was the people who decide who is president, no matter how hard the media tries to control the dialog. I think Fox news taught most folks that you can't trust the media so they are thinking for themselves this time.

          Problem is, Hillary concentrated on the people she thought would help her win, the feminists, the older people, the low-information white voters. She left me out and my husband and my son. She allowed her surrogates to push out the AA vote, a vote she had early in the race.

          She gave it away..it wasn't stolen. She gave it away by making some major mistakes. I actually feel rather sorry for her. The mistakes had more to do with the people she trusted..Penn, Bill, etc. than who she is. I honestly wish she had run a better campaign. I wish she had proven to me she was the person I thought she was a year ago rather than constantly prove otherwise.

    •  you're delusional (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LynneK, Darmok, Fixed Point Theorem

      Show me ONE SINGLE IOTA OF PROOF WHERE ANYONE stole anything from Hillary Clinton.  ONE SINGLE IOTA OF PROOF.

      I dare you.  We are all waiting.

      That is the most friggin' inane statement I have read here and it is so pathetic, it is almost funny.

      "It was stolen"...OK Einstein, PROVE IT.

    •  on what do you base that? (5+ / 0-)

      How do you come to the conclusion that it was "stolen" from her? He won more contests, he won more delegates, and he won more votes - even with FL included.  

      Are agreed upon rules inherently unfair and to be ignored, unless Hillary wins?  To my knowledge, a central concern of feminism is that rules should apply equally and fairly to all.  Moving the goal posts is anathema to what most feminists stand for.  That's what Republicans and elitists do, not progressives and feminists.  

      Let me be terribly sexist for a moment and use a sports analogy.  If a basketball team had scored fewer points at the final buzzer than the other team, what would you think if they later claimed they actually won the game because the baskets they made during halftime practice should have counted?  

      I would expect that the team with the most points is declared the winner - and I'm sure that most basic standard is upheld in the WNBA as well ;)  As this diary states, to expect otherwise is to argue for entitlement...

      •  Your analogy does not work in this case. This is (0+ / 0-)

        a game where after the athletic contest is over, a group of unelected, mostly male, judges get together and decide who to give the prize money to.

        These unelected male judges have oddly enough decided to give it to a guy from nowhere, who never did anything except say "Change, Hope and Yes we can", oh!,  and also be male.

        It's a wound that will not heal. It will cost dearly no matter how hard Hillary tries to coax her supporters to rally around the judges choice.

        •  Oy vey (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Seldom Seen, Fixed Point Theorem

          "This is a game where after the athletic contest is over, a group of unelected, mostly male, judges get together and decide who to give the prize money to."

          Yes, we all know that.  So, on what do you propose these unelected, "mostly male" judges base their decision on who to "give the prize money to"?  Should they award the nomination to the team that won the most contests, the most delegates via election, and the most votes?  Or should they ignore that and give it to the other team... just because?  If you propose the latter, then why do we even bother with elections in the first place? - just save the voters all this time and expense and award it to Hillary back in October.

          •  If any good is to come of this process, it will (0+ / 0-)

            be that two things are different next time than they were this time

            1. There will be no Super Delegates
            1. There will be no Caucus States.

            Is there anyone out there that thinks a Caucus vote is representative of how the state would have voted in an actual Primary?

            If we are going to talk about Democracy than everyone who wants to vote should be allowed to vote.

            Of course that would include Michigan and Florida as well.

            This thing is just totally screwed up and no matter who won the other candidate would have a legitmate bitch.

            Unfortunately the party Elders are determined to select an untried Rock Star for reasons that totally escape me - unless they too would rather see McCain win than see a woman in the White House.

            •  No Super-delegates? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cali Scribe, roboton, Darmok

              That's fine by me. Obama has already won the majority of delegates determined by election results, so the only way Clinton can now take the nomination is if the Super-delegates thwart the will of the people and select her instead.  I am surprised to hear you are against Super-delegates because Hillary, having come up short at the ballot box, is counting on these unelected "mostly male" SD's to award the nomination to her.  

              It sounds like you are not really complaining that the SD's are throwing it to Obama (because they aren't - he won the most votes), so much as you are upset that they won't unfairly throw it to her...

              See, if had Hillary won the most contests, the most votes, and the most pledged delegates, but then the SD's came along and decided to give the nomination to Obama, then I think you'd be correct in saying that it was stolen from her.  In fact, eventhough I'm an Obama supporter, I'd be crying foul if that were the case.  In fact, if the numbers were reversed, I think Obama himself would not accept the nomination under such circumstances, and would have dropped out once it became obvious (long ago) that he had no way to win more elected delegates than her.  Unfortunately, it appears that Hillary does not possess such good graces.  

              I'd also be happy to do away with caucuses in the next cycle.  But that is not up to you or me or Obama or Hillary, or even the DNC.  That is up to the individual states.  Being that as it may, everyone knew going in which states were holding caucuses and how those caucuses worked.

              So I reject this notion that both candidates "have a legitimate bitch."  There really is a clear winner here, and it happens to be Obama.  Sexism has nothing to do with it, and nothing was "stolen" from Hillary.

              Including Florida is a stertch, I think, because BOTH candidates agreed beforehand not to campaign there and BOTH made public statements that the FL delegates would not count.  Hillary is seeking to change the rules after the fact.  In any case, even if you count the votes and delegates that each candidate got in FL, Hillary still loses the race for pledged delegates and still loses the popular vote.

              To say MI should be included is a complete mockery of democracy.  As you well know, she was the only one on the ballot there.  Back in January, after Benazir Bhutto was assasinated, Hillary came out and said the Pakistan election would not be legitimate because Musharraf would be the only one on the ballot.  "That is not a real election", she said.  In any case, even if you go ahead and include MI along with FL, she is STILL behind in pledged delegates and total popular vote.  

              So what is your point here?

        •  Clinton hasn't done shit. (3+ / 0-)

          First Lady of Dogpatch and being a partner in an anti-union law firm that wouldn't be in the top 100 in any real city like New York or DC hardly counts as experience.

          Of the two, Obama is the more seasoned and accomplished candidate, with the longer record of public service.

          Vote for Evita Clinton, dump Howard Dean, bring back McAuliffe, end people-powered politics and restore triangulation.

          by expatjourno on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:22:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And where were the complaints about (3+ / 0-)

          superdelegates when Clinton held the lead in them? Obama didn't catch up with her until just about a week ago.

          If Clinton takes the nomination through the superdelegates after Obama has captured the most elected delegates amongst the states that followed the rules, that would indeed be like the unelected judges (and why did you have to say "male"? There are female superdelegates as well) giving the prize money and trophy to the team with fewer points.

          "Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher

          by Cali Scribe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:38:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Excuse me, but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Darmok, Fixed Point Theorem

      in order to have something stolen from you, don't you have to first have ownership of said item? Nobody has the nomination until it is given to him/her; therefore, the claim that anything has been "stolen" from Senator Clinton is complete and uttter bovine excrement.

      "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi -9.38/-6.26

      by LynneK on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:43:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Borderline troll-rate-able comment? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem
    •  fuck you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Fixed Point Theorem

      that was what your post said to me.

      it was a big fuck you to all americans and the world who will have to enjoy four more years of mcbush.

      disgusting.

    •  I don't think she's going to try very hard. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem, fleisch

      To rally her supporters for Obama.

      I think she'll say something along the lines of, "Please, vote for Barack. He got less votes than me, but he's not a Muslim as far as I know, and it's possible he can get someone else to answer the phone at 3 a.m."

      "And who knows? Maybe the sun really will shine down from heaven and make it miraculously possible for his naive foreign policy to work."

      -9.0, -8.3. Socialized medicine, not "universal coverage". Public transit, not "35 mpg".

      by SensibleShoes on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:55:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How was it stolen? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beachmom, Darmok, Fixed Point Theorem

      The only lead Clinton ever had was in superdelegates (thanks to her and possibly her husband calling in political favors) and name recognition.

      Did the NY Giants "steal" the Lombardi Trophy from the "inevitable" New England Patriots? No -- they played by the rules and they won.

      Tell us exactly how the nomination was "stolen" from Clinton. Was she forced to hire incompetents like Penn and Wolfson and McAuliffe? Were the rules changed in mid-race to favor her opponent, the way she wants them changed for her now? Did the DNC make her burn through all her money well before the end of the race?

      Clinton had no problem with caucuses when it was her husband winning them in the 1990s -- it wasn't until she started losing them that they were "disenfranchsing". (I happen to agree with her, but the time to question them should have been before they took place.) She was perfectly fine with disregarding the results of MI and FL -- until she needed those delegates to remain relevant. And if the roles were reversed and she had the delegate lead, not only would she not care about MI/FL, she wouldn't be bringing up the mythical "popular vote" but would be touting the value of elected delegates.

      I'm not ready to throw in the towel on the November election -- there's a long stretch between now and then, and the adults in the Clinton camp will realize that there's nothing to be gained by holding their breath till they turn blue -- their candidate lost, just like 5 other candidates did before her.

      "Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher

      by Cali Scribe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:26:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm an Oer speaking up for HRC (0+ / 0-)

      In my opinion, the main argument in the diary is a reasonable one for someone to make -- that Obama didn't "steal" the nomination from HRC.

      You might agree or disagree, but that argument in and of itself is a fine one to make.

      The problem is that the rhetoric of the diary implies that women who hold the opposite belief have disgraced themselves, and that all women are somehow responsible for the views of those women.

      That kind of rhetoric is, obviously, really awful.

    •  Show how it was stolen. (0+ / 0-)

      John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

      by beachmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:35:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "I hope they are all proud of themselves." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, LynneK

    No problem. Those who have overdosed on hubris (their own, or via the clinton-conduit) rarely lack pride (false or otherwise) You know that old acorn about pride? it 'goeth before the fall'? not this time...

    Excellent diary. Recommended.

    The only 'problem' I see here is that your writing is just too rational.

    Crystal. Clear.  

  •  If Joy said that she has changed her mind (0+ / 0-)

    she now supports Obama and has even questioned why is Hillary still in the race. Sometimes peoples words are taken out of context for the reporters own agenda

  •  Bravo (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, LynneK, elwior, julibug

    and thank you.

    The goal of equality, of the civil rights movement, and of feminism is to have no one judge you simply on the basis of your skin color or your gender.  

    <snip>

    if we truly wanted to be equals, if we truly valued the goals of the civil rights movement and of feminism, we should be looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as just human beings.   Barack Obama is a human being.  Hillary Clinton is a human being.  And we should not be relegating either to the niche of "men" or "women" or "white" or "black."  

    This is what I've been trying to say for months, and only managing to sputter about "the best person for the job, regardless of race or gender."

    And this

    Equality does not entitle anyone to anything, except opportunity.

    should be a bumpersticker.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. - Barbara Jordan

    by SingerInTheChoir on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:20:21 AM PDT

  •  Oh, she earned it allright, but it had nothing to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK, fleisch

    do with being a woman or sexism.
    It had everything to do with ward politics, chits called in, favors owed, big money interests, to top down management (Howard or Terry certainly don't represent me, or the people) to fraudulent claims (3 am phone calls, vetted candidates, obliteration) to sneaky claims (money owed, money taken in, popular votes) to  what we see now.

  •  Unbelievably divisive (9+ / 0-)

    I can say without equivocation that if the Obama campaign smeared, slammed, and slurred Clinton throughout the nomination, downplaying her accomplishments, I would not support Obama for President.

    Clinton lost fair and square.  This meme is horrendous.

  •  She could easily have won fair and square ... (6+ / 0-)

    instead she lost fair and square.

    To me, that is the definition of equality.

    -2.38 -4.87: Maturity - Doing what you know is right even though you were told to do it.

    by grapes on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:21:54 AM PDT

  •  Math is sexist. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno
  •  as a feminist, 51 white female... (14+ / 0-)

    I take no pride in Clinton's candidacy.  She did not run with honor and she is not losing with grace.  That is no victory for feminism.

    McCain is not a moderate, a maverick, or a man of integrity.

    by marjo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:24:01 AM PDT

  •  I often wonder... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, LynneK

    if anyone from the Clinton campaign reads any of this stuff and understands what she is doing to the Democratic party and how far the Clintons have fallen in all of our eyes.

    Is she so delusional that an idiotic comment from Joy (who is no stranger to idiotic comments and way too often speaks before thinking or having facts) will propel her to continue with this inane and ill-conceived and flat out wrong sexism charge?

    Gee whiz, Hillary, have you ever understood sexism?  It most certainly is not pounding your fist on the table until you get your way, or calling everyone around you names to get your way or doing everything to show everyone what "balls" you have.  The only person in this campaign who has acted in a sexist manner is YOU.  You chose to dress like a man, pretend you were a hunter, pretend to pound down shots, and threatened to obliterate Iran.  You have acted in a despicable manner, no matter what sex you are, and the reason people chose the other candidate is because we actually can see ourselves LIKING him, as opposed to you, where hanging out with you would be a drain on one's soul.  You obviously have no pride left, but if somewhere in there somewhere you want anyone to vote for you ever again, it is probably time you let this vitrol go and take your little family and GO HOME.

    •  I wouldn't consider wearing pantsuits (0+ / 0-)

      instead of skirts/dresses "dressing like a man" -- I wear pants far more than I wear skirts or dresses, mainly because I have one calf that's larger than the other (vestiges of an infection that almost cost me the leg) and the pants hide that fact. (Also I'm far more comfortable in laceup shoes than I am in the types of shoes required to wear with dresses.) I do agree though that many of her stances have been taken to show that she's "tough enough" to be President, but I'm not sure if they were to dispel the fact that she's a woman or just counteracting the usual right-wing meme of "soft Democrats".

      "Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher

      by Cali Scribe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:13:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  very funny b/c HRC had (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, subtropolis, Isara, Neon Mama, LynneK

    best name in D politics
    tons of $
    huge superdelegate lead
    ~60% female electorate
    great popularity among blacks and latinos
    "clinton machine"
    part of a successful presidency, especially compared to GWBush
    20%-30% leads in nearly all states

    thus, "inevitability."

    she lost to a 1st term, black liberal with african/arab names (who millions still think is muslim) during wars with ppl with arab names.

    epic choke?

  •  Despicable. Just despicable. (8+ / 0-)

    She did not OWN this nomination.  That sense of entitlement, and reducing it all to sexism gives feminism and everything it stands for, a bad name.  

    Shame on Hillary.  Shame on Ferraro.  And shame on Joy Behar.  

    Isn't it interesting that you don't hear such nonsense out of the black community?  Who would have every right to cry foul if Obama had so blatantly used his race the way Hillary Clinton has used her gender.  

    Disgusting.  I'm ashamed of all of them.  And I'm Hillary's demographic.  

    The supers should have stepped up and ended this by now.  Hillary is a disgrace to the Democratic party.  

    •  It is refreshing and reassuring... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      ...to hear from sensible Democratic women like yourself.  

      Yep, the entitlement (and sad, bitter, petty anger over losing) clearly felt by HRC and her camp is simply mind-blowing. I love how winning has become stealing in the minds of these delusional zealots.

      Any Democrat who helps get McSame elected is not a Democrat at all.  Blood will be on their hands when the Maverick brings home thousands more soldiers in coffins--and they will have to live with that.  

      •  And when the Supreme Court overturns Roe, (0+ / 0-)

        And when we fail again to get adequate health care , a real energy policy, a minimum wage that keeps pace with Inflation. When the Super rich get super richer, and everyone else falls behind. And on and on and on.
          This motherfucking election is NOT about race or gender or anyone's ridiculous ego concerns!
           This election is about the People of the United States and our critical to regain control of our government. It's about our Nation's place in the World,  it's long-term well-being and it's ability to provide liberty and justice for all.
            The differences between Obama and McCain are about as stark as it gets, and the Nation stands at a crossroads.
             This is not a game, and the purveyors of bullshit need to stop!

        "We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution

        by elwior on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:30:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  She took it away from herself (4+ / 0-)

    If she offered a compelling narrative for her candidacy in Iowa and on and after Super Tuesday in more states, then she'd be the presumptive nominee, not Obama.  And if she did so, then it is also much more highly likely that Obama would have dropped out by now as his candidacy wouldn't have had the electoral vote power to spur his significant online fundraising efforts.

    But that narrative doesn't exist... because the events didn't play out that way.

    No one TOOK this election away from Hillary Clinton except for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson and Harold Ickes and Lanny Davis and the rest of the Clinton campaign.  And Obama and his campaign just outshined the competition.

  •  winning and losing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK, manucpa, jjmn

    One of the first thing you teach children when introducing them to competition is how to compete hard and fair and lose and win gracefully. You are not entitled to win, you have to earn it and if you lose you learn from your loss and move on.

    There is nothing more pathetic then the child who can not lose and wants to change the rules and cheat when he or she is not winning. It's an annoying trait in a child older then 3 but it is really ugly in an adult. That kind of petulant narcissistic behavior is really destructive and is not the sign of a fighter, just a sore loser with an over blown sense of entitlement.

  •  When did the Obama Campaign... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK, manucpa, jjmn

    ...ever attack Clinton for her Gender? When did they ever launch an attack criticizing her on anything other than policy or on rarer occasions execrable tactics? Their critiques were based on policy, on her bad decisions, or her divisive campaign tactics, not her chromosomes.

    For that alone, I hold my head up high.

    There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

    by MNPundit on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:25:43 AM PDT

  •  Did the Giants take it away from the Patriots? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xynz, Seldom Seen, LynneK, fleisch

    Perhaps.  But was it theft?

    Where's that piece of paper I had in my hand yesterday? -- Miranda Priestley

    by BA BarackUS on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:26:16 AM PDT

  •  women like Joy Behar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK, manucpa, Vita Brevis

    are doing a disservice to other women by perpetuating a stereotype of women as overly emotional, self-centered drama queens.

  •  It is the war vote. (4+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but she sealed her fate with the war vote. How in a change year when Iraq, though not number 1 issue now due to the economy, did she expect to beat someone who gave a speech at the same time saying the war was not the right thing to do?

    Problem was she did not see any real challange from a candiate who opposed the war. She underestimated the black guy.

    Was she really for the war or did she buy into the "she is a woman so I have to show Im strong" thus influencing her vote?

    I equate this Iraq vote to her Florida and Michigan vote. If she really thought those votes should count, she she have thought of that at the beginning and not now. She is about politics.

    Her being the wife of Pres. Clinton did not make her accomplished or smart or tenacious, but it did give her the chance to pick NY and go there and be senator. No other woman from Arkansas as smart as her could have done that with being the First Lady first. Please....

  •  Hillary made some big mistakes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, Isara, Neon Mama, LynneK

    If she had not made two huge strategic and tactical errors:

    1. Betting everything on wiping out the opposition on Super Tuesday.
    1. Not admitting that her Iraq war vote was a mistake

    She would have been the nominee a month ago.

    Obama, by comparison has run a remarkably competent and error-free campaign, especially considering he is a first-time candidate at this level.

    At this level, equality requires taking ownership of your own mistakes before blaming others.

    -2.38 -4.87: Maturity - Doing what you know is right even though you were told to do it.

    by grapes on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:27:11 AM PDT

  •  What a patently disgusting comment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, Isara, LynneK

    Obama "took" nothing from Clinton, because the nomination belongs to the primary voters (and ostensibly the super delegates, in our party's case), and not to ANY politician.

    Disgusting. That whole concept is half of why Clinton lost what she easily could've won (and by won, I mean earned). Entitlement. It has no place in the politics of a democratic republic.

    Reinforces everything I've ever felt about the garbage cult of victimization of shows like The View.

    Bipartisanship: I'll kiss your elephant if you kiss my ass...

    by surfbird007 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:28:30 AM PDT

  •  One of the men that def took it from her: Bill (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, Isara, LynneK

    Sorry-
    but HRC benefitted greatly in her life by being Mrs. Bill Clinton- and she also paid a price for it.   None of us will ever know whether some of his conduct on the stump was unknowing sabotage to her campaign or whether he just has lost his game.

    But ultimately, HRC took it away from herself.   Poor judgment in voting for the Iraq war, poor judgment in picking campaign managers, poor planning, fiscal irresponsibility, and not 'finding her voice' til possibly PA.    I doubt she lost as many votes for not having a penis as O lost for not being 100% white.

  •  Women of a Certain Age (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK

    Just don't understand achievement. My mother and mother-in-law are also disappointed in this way. But, they led their lives as dependent women, and men "gave" them things. Their world view is an anachronism - and we should all be glad.

    People are not "given" the nomination.  She didn't win it.

    Only small minds want always to be right - Louis XIV

    by Jamais Vu on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:30:10 AM PDT

    •  That's very unfair to women of a certain age. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chiniqua, Isara, fleisch

      My mother raised four children alone and my dad "gave" her $75 a week to help out. She refused to let the govt "give" us food stamps, and she's still uncomfortable when I try to "give" her something she desperately needs, like a stove.

      Some people do expect the world to give them things-- but they are by no means all female or all older. The first examples that are coming to my mind are young males, but I don't blame all young males for that.

      -9.0, -8.3. Socialized medicine, not "universal coverage". Public transit, not "35 mpg".

      by SensibleShoes on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:59:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know if age has anything to do with it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darmok, zbbrox

      My mom taught me that no one's going to hand me anything on a silver platter -- if I got a bad grade in a class, I knew that it wasn't due to my being a girl, but because I screwed up on a test or didn't turn in my homework on time. She moved up the ranks of her job not because anyone gave her anything, but she worked her ass off and earned every raise and every promotion she got. In fact, she left that job after over 20 years there when the management changed and it became a place of favoritism and people getting perks without putting what she saw as the proper effort.

      She was a diehard Republican and would never have voted for Clinton anyway (nor Obama), but she would take a very dim view of Clinton's actions.

      "Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher

      by Cali Scribe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmph (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, betson08, LynneK

    I don't think I've ever heard Danica Patrick complain that a man took a race away from her.  Neither do her fans.

    This is not feminism.  Period.

  •  I have had it! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK

    As others have said, in order for it to have been taken from someone, "someone" would have to have had "it" to begin with. Had that been the case, then there would have been no need for a primary season would there? We would have simply gone straight to the general because "it" was already awarded.

    Silly me for thinking that we go through a primary in order to let people weigh in, decide, eliminate and ultimately leave a victor at the end. This ain't horseshoes. Close doesn't count.

    Silly me for thinking that someone who continually talks about readiness for the job, superior leadership and judgement, experience etc. was capable of understanding the rules by which she knew she was bound.

    I am completely and thoroughly embarrassed and disgusted that some think this is an argument. Losing a hard fought contest does not set women back. This kind of sour grapes, whining and embracing victim status however does.

  •  That whole ' ENTITLEMENT' thing that reeks (0+ / 0-)

    from Camp Clinton and her supporters.

  •  Voters decided. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, IndieinVa

    The voters decided, after the great majority of the insiders had been sure that the nomination was hers. If somebody is to blame, except the Cliton campaign which did a miserable job through February, it is teh voters.

    "The three main issues in this campaign are Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq." -- Bill Foster

    by Frank Palmer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:33:34 AM PDT

  •  wonderful! I've written about this too.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem

    I've been railing against the same insanity and gender-baiting for a few days now, it seems she really wants her supporters to think a sexist Obama and Democratic Party robbed her of her nomination so they will sabotage Obama in November, either so she can run again in 2012 or just out of spite. Anyway, read my blogs if you are interested, and I'll surely link to this one:

    http://www.thepersonalispolitical.co...

    http://www.thepersonalispolitical.co...

    http://www.thepersonalispolitical.co...

    http://www.thepersonalispolitical.co...

  •  But I thought Joy Behar (3+ / 0-)

    supports Obama? She was very enthusiastic about him when he was on The View. My sister and I joked she was shameless because she didn't bother hiding her enthusiasm about his campaign.

    I'd like to see a full transcript.

    Was her statement you quoted simply her saying how it feels for some women? I find it hard to believe that it is personally what she thinks.

    •  Others have mentioned that.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and she very well may be.  I don't watch the show enough to know.  But the fact is she still said the quote, and it is the quote and its meaning that I wish to discuss and not Joy Behar.  

      •  Thanks for the video DD. (0+ / 0-)

        You're right. Very disappointing that this is her take on Clinton not being the nominee.

        I'd agree then, this is what she believes, after watching the full context.

        Here's the YouTube of Obama on The View, if you wanted to watch. He did really well on the show, I thought. I got a sense of Joy nodding at some his points throughout and being enthusiastic about him. You hear her saying "exactly!" at the end of part 3 on his energy policy. Part 5 she asks him a question and she seems to like his response. When he jokes that Michele is a better speaker than him, she says "no you're good too!" very warmly.

        part1
        part 2
        part 3
        part 4
        part 5

        I will say though, I'm sure she isn't entirely unhappy about a President Obama. Maybe she's disappointed that we won't have a woman president, but I think she likes Obama too.

    •  nope, that's actually how she said it (0+ / 0-)

      Whoopie: When your daughters come up to you and ask if you voted for Hillary Clinton, what do you say?

      Joy Behar: A man took it away from a woman. Then they yelled at her for complaining about it. You tell them the truth.

      Two minute clip on the front page of The View

      I can haz sound economic policy?

      by Isara on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Joy support Obama? (0+ / 0-)

      Your doing it wrong!

  •  A smooth-talker took it away from a scrapper, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sclminc, IndieinVa

    a popularity contest has been almost won, a professor has his students in love with him, a very ambitious politician has almost accomplished his goal, a political newbie has enchanted his swooning followers, youth has almost overcome age, rhetoric has subsumed reality, there are many perspectives.

    McCain: Same as W, only older.

    by 4Freedom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:37:10 AM PDT

  •  What is w/this diarist's obsession w/facts? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem, fleisch

    Don't you know the feelings of Clinton's supporters are the only metric worth discussing in this race? Please stop introducing empirical evidence and statistics into the debate. Hillary fans want and need their truthiness instead.

    Quite honestly, this nomination fight is getting stranger by the day. I gotta hand it to the junior senator from New York, though. She's managed to convince the rubes that she's the populist protest vote candidate and Obama is the elitist. Now all of the losers in Appalachia and every low-information yokel who has ever felt angry or "bitter" about how unfair life is thinks she's going to be the avenging angel of the working class. Too bad they are too stupid to realize that she won't be a fighter for them, only for the board of Wal-Mart and the rich Rush Limbaughs of the world.

    I think the time has come when the American people have revealed that we are just collectively too stupid to live in a democracy anymore. Oops, I forgot. We already proved that in 2000 and 2004.

    •  We don't really live in a democracy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philimus

      I think the time has come when the American people have revealed that we are just collectively too stupid to live in a democracy anymore. Oops, I forgot. We already proved that in 2000 and 2004.

      We don't actually live in a democracy, for just this reason. Our "elitist" founding fathers set up a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy because they didn't think most people were smart enough to be trusted with the franchise. They way overdid who it was that couldn't be trusted, but there's some reason for their thinking.

      Nowadays, we have the technology where everyone could vote on everything. We don't really need a Congress, not for voting, if you believed in true democracy. But the people collectively are stupid, or at least open to manipulation--hence the phrase "mob mentality". Hitler, after all, was confirmed by plebiscite once he had seized office.  And we had the re-election of Bush in 2004, playing on fear and prejudice.  The "people" at large are as a whole not civicly(sp?) aware, and are prone to demagoguery (though I think that's a word that's usually thrown around to demonize those who support populist interests rather than corporatist interests).

      The problem is that representative democracy is just as prone to manipulation, because when the levers of power are in the hands of a few they can more easily be bought (or you don't need to buy as many to get what you want). DeTocqueville famously predicted that democracy could only last until people discovered they could vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.  Weirdly, it wasn't the public at large that discovered this--they just got enough trickle-down to lull them into apathy.  It was the rich that really managed to siphon off the public treasury.

      Fortunately, the answer still is in our hands.  We still have the power to vote and to wake people up from their apathy.  Vote the rascals out (including the Dems if need be).

  •  Sad. If Obama were a woman...... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    then SHE would have won over another woman.

    Only a feeling of entitlement leads to the "taken away" meme.

    As an over-60 woman, I feel the best candidate has won out. It has nothing to do with gender. If Hillary were a man HE would not have won, Obama would have won. I wanted a woman to win but she was not the best candidate.

    There has, imho, been no sexual bias other than in the hearts of individuals when they voted. Hillary had great press, the rush of inevitability surrounded her (inappropriately) for months and months on end. But just being the first woman in contention does not entitle her to win. Nothing entitles one to win.

    People were not persuaded by sexism arguments or remarks or lack of coverage or differences coverage. People were persuaded by a variety of factors including race and fear.

    Thank God the Democrats won control of the Senate... otherwise, think of how different everything would be. -G.Greenwald

    by Gorette on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:37:47 AM PDT

    •  If Hillary had not been married (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, demoKatz, Fixed Point Theorem

      to Bill Clinton, I doubt she would have even made it this far -- it was the cache of the last name that gained her entry into the inner circle to begin with. It's possible she wouldn't even be a Senator from New York.

      I'm finally beginning to believe those folks who said that this was why she didn't dump Bill for his cheating ages ago -- she recognized that he was her meal ticket to her political future. Hillary Rodham would've had an uphill battle being elected anywhere, but she rode her husband's political coattails as far as she could.

      "Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher

      by Cali Scribe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I made that comment a few months ago and boy, (0+ / 0-)

        was I criticized royally for it! Times have changed, haven't they? (I agree with you!)

        Thank God the Democrats won control of the Senate... otherwise, think of how different everything would be. -G.Greenwald

        by Gorette on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:20:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wrecking ball (0+ / 0-)

    As I fell asleep last night, I was thinking of the differences in these campaigns since we had our primary here in TX on March 4.  While Clinton rolled out her "fear" and "kitchen sink" strategy in the week before Ohio and TX, there was little--if any--discussion of race and gender that now permeates the primaries and campaign trail.  This divisiness began leading up to PA and has continued from there.

    In March, we were filled with hope and optimism, and even though I had issues with Hillary's campaign at that time it was not the negativity I feel towards her now.  It is breathtaking to me the amount of damage she has managed to inflict on the party in 2 months.  While I believe that Barack can pull it back together, it will never again be with the level of hope and optimism we saw earlier this year.  At that time, I felt almost naive in my sense of optimism despite being a battle hardened 54 year old white woman.  These types of comments by smart women make me very sad.  Instead of handling this with grace and dignity, thereby advancing interests for the next woman who runs, the Clintons once again have been a two headed wrecking ball.  Not much has changed with them since they lost Congress for the democrats under Bill's presidency.

    Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. "

    by FoxfireTX on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:37:54 AM PDT

  •  I'm getting mad as hell (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lesser Dane

    And can't take it anymore! I'm a white woman, over 50 - OK and I support Barack Obama. I process a lot of information about this campaign everyday. I can see the way HRC has manipulated the mainstream mindset. Just yesterday I wondered allowed to my husband.... 'just what is she up to now, she and her surrogates are all over TV crying gender bias and sexism.' She said she's been called a B-word. DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK BARACK AND HAS NOT BEEN CALLED THE N - word at somepoint during this campaign. SORRY - I volunteered in Southwestern PA and I saw the racism in their eyes and was yelled at myself. So, yeah I'm sure HRC was treated unfairly at some point in the campaign by someone, somewhere and it wasn't right. But, she wants to create a mainstream mindset that she was the only one treated with bias!!

    Yesterday I heard an interview with a couple in rural Clay County, Kentucky. The family's annual income was just over $9,000 per year. They asked the wife what she thought of Barack Obama. She was skeptical and cautious said she didn't know too much about him.

    Then the interviewer asked her what she thought about Hillary and the woman went OFF! Yelling - IT'S IN THE BIBLE, A WOMANS PLACE IS IN THE HOME!!!

    I pose this question to everyone - IS IT SEXISM WHEN IT COMES FROM A WOMAN?

  •  I've never seen the View (0+ / 0-)

    except for clips here and there, which left me with the impression that the View was doing every bit as much for women in America as the Hillary Clinton campaign is doing.

    To wit: making us look bad.

    -9.0, -8.3. Socialized medicine, not "universal coverage". Public transit, not "35 mpg".

    by SensibleShoes on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:39:25 AM PDT

  •  Hillary got where she is by a (shudder) Man (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xynz, Neon Mama

    Bill Clinton, the swinging dick himself.

    This present sense of entitlement grew in the sixties when women were addressing legitimate grievances. Since then, priveleged women, whose parents (usually a man and a woman) sent them to college, have taken up the clarion call for equality, IMO often to cover the fact of their competitive failures in a realm more temperamentally suited (statistically speaking)for men.

    The Great Society movement of those years was founded on the theory that everyone was the same and therefore if they weren't making it, nature wasn't to blame, but the ruling class: men.

    Do I believe that a woman's place is in the home?
    No, because I saw my poor mother suffer because my father refused to permit her to work at our church.
    (He didn't like the liberal preacher).

    But the next generation usually had no such blockage to their career choices (My sister is a spectacular example of entitlement run amok.) So now we have a host of dissatisfied Ferraros whining about how bad they have it.

    Whew, I'll be glad when this is all over, and Michelle and the Obama girls can settle in to their new digs insulated from these harpies.

    can we handle the power of change?

    by bob zimway on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:39:56 AM PDT

  •  The victim identity is really tiring (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe, DesertCat, Isara

    Hillary is anything but a victim, and I wish her supporters would stop projecting their own vicimhood onto her campaign.

    Feminism got WAY past this issue a couple of decades ago, but I see some women never let it go....

  •  Ms President, not Ms Ex First Lady (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe, elwior

    I look forward to the next qualfied woman running for president who's not qualified mainly because she was married to a man when he was president.

    Hillary Clinton has indeed shattered many myths and boundaries keeping women out of the presidency, and thereby showing them access to positions of power generally. But she's a product of the old system she's leading into retirement. If she hadn't married Bill Clinton and helped him become president, she wouldn't be a major candidate for a major party's nomination, and probably wouldn't be a senator (her alternate life history is hard to guess without factoring Bill Clinton into it).

    When that inevitable female President is inaugurated, there will be no denying that Hillary Clinton, more than anyone since the Suffragettes, made it possible. And I expect that her inauguration speech will feature that credit.

    Which, if your business is uplifting the nation and creating opportunity for the disadvantaged, is more credit than practically any other American now living deserves. I hope Hillary Clinton lives long enough to enjoy it.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:40:14 AM PDT

  •  This is why I wrote about WomenCount (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betson08, Isara, Neon Mama

    Pac yesterday http://www.dailykos.com/...
    There is this definite and annoying braying quality to the "voices" of women who are supposedly not being heard in this election. I think that it's ridiculous to suggest that a vote against Hillary is a vote against women. Sheesh. I'm a very happy woman in my 50th year and I have no qualms about Barack Obama's record in support of women's issues. WomenCount, Suzie Tomkins Buell, Monica Davis, Joy Behar and all the other "women" who think Hillary is being treated unfairly need to stop these damaging remarks.

    I may not be one of you, but I'm one of you...

    by phoebe1st on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:40:48 AM PDT

  •  Email the View (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JimmyTheSaint, Preyanka

    I went over to The View's page and clicked on the link to email the View Master (and Joy Behar).

    I can't wait for this to be over. I am sick of Hillary and this idiotic assumption that just because I have a uterus and fallopian tubes means that I should support her.

    Hello! I have a brain! I'm using LOGIC.

  •  Anti-Feminist Backlash (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy, ldvisavis, LeftBob1326

    As a woman, this sort of thing makes me so angry.  It's embarrassing.  If we're so "tough" then why can't we play by the rules, even when they don't favor us?  Why can't we lose gracefully?  Why instead must we whine and complain about it not being "fair" that the woman didn't get chosen?  The man didn't take it away from the woman; the voters gave it to the person they wanted to have it.  Simple.  These women give feminism and all women a bad name.  Makes me want to scream.

    Patriotism isn't something you can pin to a lapel. Patriotism is loving your country enough to want to change it for the better.

    by Preyanka on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:42:16 AM PDT

  •  I sent this to the view (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Isara, itsolivia

    Use this link to send a comment. Here's mine:

    On a previous show, Whoopi asked the co-hosts how they would describe the historic Democratic Primary. Joy Behar replied, "A man took it away from a woman. Then they yelled at her for complaining about it."

    I'd like to remind Ms. Behar that Senator Clinton never possessed the nomination. Yes, she was, by most accounts, the presumptive favorite heading into the primaries, but after votes started being cast things changed. You can drag out all the Clinton talking points about Caucuses vs. Primaries, Michigan and Florida, etc. etc. None of it matters. Those were the rules that all the candidates agreed to play by. It is this sense of entitlement among certain Clinton supporters that offends me. The nomination is not a right. NO candidate is entitled to leadership of a party. The privilege to lead is earned, not awarded.

    I did not vote for Barack Obama because he is a man, or to cast a vote against Hillary Clinton. I did not vote for Senator Obama because he is black. I voted for Senator Obama because I agree with his policies and support his positions. To infer that this man stole something from this woman is disgusting. Senator Clinton has been treated VERY differently precisely because of who she is. If Senator Obama had lost every primary in February after Super Tuesday, would the media, party leadership, and Senator Clinton herself have allowed Barack Obama to stay in the race? Of course not. If he had lost 12 or 13 straight primaries he would have been told to withdraw, and the nomination would have been over by March. Senator Clinton lost 12 straight contests, but there were few calls for her exit, and when there were, those calls were immediately branded as sexist. If Senator Obama only had one way left to the nomination (through a massive number of superdelegates overturning the results to this point) would he still be in the race? Certainly not. Senator Clinton has been allowed to remain in this race because she is Hillary Clinton and she is respected within the party. It is a shame her supporters scream bloody murder and claim sexism every time someone reads the writing on the wall.

    You diminish Senator Clinton's accomplishment by blaming her defeat on sexism. She lost on the merits of her campaign, nothing more. She and her campaign staff underestimated her opponent and paid the price. Do not diminish her accomplishments by saying she lost because she is a woman.

    The shame of this primary campaign is that no matter the outcome, a historically groundbreaking candidate had to lose. The tragedy of this election is that the losing candidate and her supporters cannot accept defeat without inferring sexism and misogyny. Equality is the knowledge that all opportunities are open to all persons, but that those opportunities will be earned not awarded. Equality also means that losses and misfortune can no longer be blamed on gender or race. We win on our merits and we lose on our merits. To say or do otherwise does not properly pay honor and serve those who struggle daily for equal rights for all.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Reinard

    (-6.12, -7.28) We The People of the United States of America...

    by LeftBob1326 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:43:34 AM PDT

  •  Goddess! I have "The View" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DesertCat, karmsy, Neon Mama

    I find its content insulting to women's intelligence.

    I guess I'm not their target demographic.

    White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 10/07)

    by Glinda on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:43:48 AM PDT

  •  Very well put - thanks! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy

    A little patience, and we shall see...the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles. ...Thomas Jefferson, 1798

    by MntJulp on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:43:49 AM PDT

  •  Did HRC face special hurdles as a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Isara

    woman, fighting for the Democratic nomination? Of course she did. Though I am no Hillary supporter, did I, at points, call her detractors on sexist attacks? Absolutely.

    But, you know, all the whining these days from her supporters makes me think of the aftermath of our tragic presidential elections in 2000 and 2004. We had some very hurt progressives, of which I count myself as one. Specifically, we had some aggrieved Democrats, bemoaning the unfairness of it all: the possible election fraud, the unfair attacks by opponents, the "good" candidate being under-funded--on and on and on.

    As in HRC's race, these allegations of bias in past presidential races--and they may well have been solid allegations, mind you--are hardly the most important part of the story, imo. No, the real kernel of the story is that the candidate in question, through their campaign strategy and messaging, did not inspire voters in sufficient numbers to turn the tide in their favor. That's it.

  •  Brokeback Mountain redux (Oscar "theft") (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, Isara, karmsy, Gut Check

    In 2005, "Crash" won Best Picture over "Brokeback Mountain."

    Many gay movie buffs were heartbroken and there were bitter accusations of homophobia.

    But did Crash literally "steal" the Best Picture award from Brokeback Mountain?

    What actually happened was more interesting in a strategic sense, and there is a parallel to the Obama and Clinton campaigns.  The makers of Crash wanted to win the Oscar.  So they sent a free DVD to every Academy voter and to everyone with some connection to the Academy.  They effusively encouraged everybody to watch it, share it, support it.

    Brokeback Mountain's studio was far more protective of their film.  They feared for piracy and so they only sent copies to a small and restricted subset of the Academy.  Other voting members did not receive a copy.  

    This represents a difference between a conservative, lower-participation campaign approach vs a progressive, higher-participation campaign approach.  I do think Brokeback was the better film.  But nothing was stolen.  It was an election, and more Academy voters chose Crash.  Was there some homophobia involved?  Sure.  But Brokeback was also more critically acclaimed and was newer and had much more media attention at the time of the Oscar voting; so it had that in its favor, going in.  I think Crash won in part because its makers were far wiser about how to effectively and positively campaign and promote their candidate.  

    But disappointed fans and supporters sometimes react emotionally to the loss and do not see things clearly.

  •  Hopefully, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy

    Ms. Clinton will get past the sour grapes section of this Primary Race and focus on what is of prime import here. We need to regain the WH.

    She ran a tough race. She lost. Time to move on.

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:46:10 AM PDT

  •  What are the voters? Potted plants? nt (0+ / 0-)

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.--Thomas Jefferson

    by jazzyndn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:48:18 AM PDT

  •  What if it were Condi Rice? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe, iowabosox, demoKatz

    Consider for a moment an alternate reality -- one where the battle this November is going to be between John Edwards and Condi Rice.

    Would progressive women Democrats be justified in voting for Rice just because they want a female president? Would progressive black Democrats be justified in voting for her? My answer is no to both because Edwards is the better progressive candidate and would make a better presidemt.

    Anyone who agrees with that argument has no business whining about Clinton's defeat by a man. I'm not directly comparing the politics of Clinton and Rice, just saying the better progressive candidate should win... and he has.

    Oceania was at war with Eurasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia

    by daveholden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:48:40 AM PDT

  •  A man also took it away from 8 men. (5+ / 0-)

    By the sneaky subterfuge of getting more votes.

    -9.0, -8.3. Socialized medicine, not "universal coverage". Public transit, not "35 mpg".

    by SensibleShoes on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:49:11 AM PDT

  •  If you consider Michigan's "uncommitted" vote (0+ / 0-)

    a vote for "anybody but Hillary" (since she was the only major candidate on the ballot) and counted those votes for Obama, and of course, Clinton's votes for her, what does that do to the popular vote count?

    He leads in popular votes cast if you include all the states fairly (You can't include Michigan since he was not on the ballot).  

  •  It makes me ill (4+ / 0-)

    I'll probably say this wrong somehow and proverbially smack the hornet's nest with a bat, but your diary has me thinking of it again.

    When I was in grade school we often openly used the term "girl rules" when playing sports.  When we were playing softball, kickball, etc. this often resulted in giving additional opportunities to a girl who had just embarrassed herself by getting her third strike.  "Ok, girls get 4 strikes".  It was mostly in good fun but was only used in non-competitive situations.  Even then I felt bad for the girls that "had game" and didn't need mulligans in order to be competitive.  There were plenty of them and we always tried to pick them to be on our teams early.  

    Now Hillary has me feeling bad for the female politicians that "have game" and don't need any "girl rules" in order to win.  All of this goalpost moving and changing the rules talk gets me thinking back to those grade school days. Sebelius, Napolitano, etc. have worked their way up and should be respected for what they bring to the table.  They don't need mulligans, they just go out and kick ass and EARN their respect.  Their states are better for it.

    If Hillary was the best candidate for the job, I would pick her in an instant.  The best boss I've ever had was a woman.  She was literally an order of magnitude better than any of the male bosses I've had.  But she was a unique individual with her own qualities. Her being a woman is inseperable from all of her accomplishments, but it was much more than her gender that made her good at her job.  In the end, though, she didn't need any special rule sets to compete.  She just did.

  •  The politics of resentment (0+ / 0-)

    being served up by Clinton right now is all too reminiscent of the racial resentment served up to rally whites in Jim Crow south. In her continuing (but ultimately futile) attempt to rally her base of 50+ women, Hillary may very well poison the Democratic well for the next several election cycles. We already have a plague of sore losers (and sore winners, too).

    Oh, he don't score at bowlarama Still you gotta thank his mama Lets hear it for the boy Hear it for my man Let's hear it for my baby

    by RudiB on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:51:01 AM PDT

  •  The hell? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, Isara, Neon Mama, Gut Check

    It's an election. It's up to the voters. The voters chose Obama.

    Sheesh. This isn't "generic male candidate vs. generic female candidate." It's Clinton vs. Obama.

    The voters acceptance of Obama over Clinton is not the rejection of a female candidate. It's the rejection of Clinton, and an acceptance of Obama.

  •  In all fairness (0+ / 0-)

    to Joy Behar...I was watching that particular show and she, I believe, was not stating her opinion when she was quoted here

    "A man took it away from a woman," Joy Behar replied. "Then they yelled at her for complaining about it."

    She was stating a meme about why some women are upset but not professing it to be true.

    Of course this is my interpretation of her comment but I sure wish it would stop coming up.  It does a terrible disservice to most women to reiterate that we would select a candidate based solely upon their gender rather than selecting the best person for the job.

    "The Taking of America, 1..2..3" title of GWB biography

    by pattisigh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:52:58 AM PDT

  •  painful (0+ / 0-)

    I get it's painful to dream of something and then be disappointed.  But I hate seeing Joy Behar's quote, "A man took it away from a woman."  If Hillary eked it out with superdelegates, and people said "The White establishment took it away from the first viable Black candidate," would Joy expect everyone to get on the Hillary bandwagon, or be too caught up in resentment to support her historic first female candidate?  

    Whatever she'd expect - and I'm guessing it would be some measure of excitement and support - that's what I expect from her for Obama.

  •  Shouldn't we be saying this stuff to Joy Behar? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fleisch

    Can you update the diary with an email address. So that we can sent these great comments to The View.

    Thanks!

  •  really? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chiniqua, RenaRF

    you write: "That quote from Joy Behar, whom I normally enjoy whenever I see clips of "The View," reveals a stunning sense of entitlement and elitism, and yes, sexism, on the part of Joy Behar specifically, and Clinton supporters generally."

    i just think this characterization is more than a little, shall we say, shrill.  the experience of women in joy behar's age group (and women much, much younger as well) of sexism in this country/world is deep, painful, and meaningful.

    was hillary entitled to the nomination?  absolutely not.  is barack obama a stunningly impressive and magical candidate?  yes.  did hillary do some incredibly ham handed and unfortunate things in her quest for the nomination?  yes.  but to reduce the emotional response of a clearly ambitious and successful woman (joy behar) to an sexist/elitist rant is truly unfair.

    barack obama, for all his gloriousness (yes, i am a strong supporter of his), is relatively new to politics and the world stage.  it is entirely understandable that hillary supporters would chafe at a charming and charismatic young man, "waltzing in" and capturing the nation's heart.  there are many, many charming and charismatic young men in this country who have waltzed in and captured all kinds of things, to the detriment of many women.  sexism is deep deep deep and heavy heavy heavy.  i feel deeply emotional in writing this myself, as a woman.

    let's give women a break for feeling disappointed that they won't have the opportunity to elect another woman to be the leader of the free world.

    •  I understand the disappointment and I DO (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chester

      sympathize with it.

      But as a woman approximately (I think) in Joy Bahar's age group, I would have to say - I find the repeated allegations of sexism (there are numerous legitimate news articles that address the question of sexism and whether or not it was the cause of HRC's falure) - what's the word I need here - damaging.  To women.

      I'm sorry - but to have these repeated claims of sexism as the key reason for Clinton's downfall makes the women leveling the charges, and women generally, look tone deaf at best.  It ignores the plethora of reasons why the the Clinton campaign experienced what can only be characterized as a spectacular fall from grace - not the least of which includes their alarming failure to plan a complete campaign, their total inability to manage substantial finances to the end of the race, and a troubling lack of understanding of the processes, procedures, and rules associated with the nominating process.  When the average person, male or female, can point to a host of legitimate reasons why the Clinton camapaign failed and they are met by Clinton supporters with cries of sexism, it diminishes the overall cause of equal rights for women.

      So I hear you on giving the disappointed a break - but that break only goes so far because in leveling the sexism charge, they are, subtly and unintentionally, making things more difficult for me and other women down the road.

      •  i agree (0+ / 0-)

        entirely.  well put.

        i don't see it as they key reason for clinton's failure.  clinton made her own bed.  poorly.  repeatedly.  disappointingly.

        i just thought the diarist's characterization was over the top and itself tone deaf to the source of the emotion that many women have brought to this issue.  i don't think it arises out of sexism or elitism.  though in some cases that may be so.

  •  yup (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe

    "But you can't say that anything was taken away from Hillary, for that implies that the nomination was hers to begin with.  Despite the "inevitability" crap, the nomination was never Hillary's to begin with.  She had to compete to earn it.  And she failed in that competition, and someone else won.  "

    Absolutely true. the presumptuousness among the Clinton supporters is ghastly.

  •  A different perspective (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem

    The other day my mother told me a story about a young male nurse fresh out of college that was promoted ahead of many more qualified female nurses with more tenure.  The subtext to the conversation was that many women, especially older women, see the primary as the same thing happening on a national stage - and it becomes very personal to them.

    On a logical level it ignores her vote on the war, the personal scandals of the Clinton family, and the fact that she didn't run a good campaign.  It also implies that Obama should be held responsible for any alleged sexism on the part of voters.  And I could go on and on.

    But hearing my mom's story I can understand the resentment and why, for some, its such an emotional trigger. I just hope that Clinton supporters realize before November that whatever alleged wrong was done to Hillary is not Obama's fault.

    (BTW, my mom is definitely voting for Obama)

    •  I understand the reasons for the opinion. (0+ / 0-)

      But those reasons do not legitimatize the opinion.

    •  But, logically, (0+ / 0-)

      Is losing all concept of reality an offshoot of experiencing inequality?  

      As someone of Irish Catholic descent, I cannot imagine what would've happened if Kennedy had acted remotely like Clinton has in this process.  If he came out guns-blazin', calling anyone a racist who didn't vote for him, that would've set pack Catholic politicians tremendously.

      you can't act like an animal and then decry those demanding civility as sexist.  I'm going through a pretty heated time with my mother, a lifelong democrat and serious progressive, who only begrudgingly will vote for Obama.  I still haven't really gotten to the root cause of it, because to me feminism is the ability to make your own choices, not to have other women take the place of a male-centric decision system.

      I don't get it.

  •  I don't even know where to begin... (10+ / 0-)

    So many comments, and this diary, of course, have already expressed many of my feelings, but I need to vent anyway.  I think it will be a very long time before we know exactly what this primary season has accomplished for women, but in the short term, it certainly seems to have set us back.

    For anyone to say that a man took this election from a woman is infuriating and it absolutely exemplifies much of what I hate about the Clinton campaign, but more it exemplifies much of what I fear with some older feminists.  I respect how much harder they had to fight than I have, but their fight should only have been to gain an equal playing field, not to have supremacy over men.  Their fight should have been to ensure that the right candidate at the right time--regardless of sex, race, age, sexual orientation, religion, whatever--is chosen, not that a woman is the nominee at all cost.

    I have hated the sexism shown toward Senator Clinton during this campaign, just as I have hated the racism shown toward Senator Obama, but I almost hate the exploitation of that sexism more.  Senator Clinton had a campaign strategy that was supposed to end this race on Super Tuesday--long before everyone's voices were heard, thank you very much.  It didn't work.  It flat out didn't work, not because she was a woman, but because she was complacent and arrogant and there was this fascinating new candidate named Barack Obama who made it a battle.  Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, her overpaid team had no Plan B, and neither did she, so they had to scramble: something they weren't good at and something which ended up being increasingly desperate, unpleasant, and Rovian.  It didn't work, either.

    What did work was Obama's campaign: the volunteers who made countless phone calls and dug deep into shallow pockets, the paid staffers who created networks out of nothing, the strategists who had their fingers on the pulse of this wonderful but oh-so-tired and wounded country, the Senator and his wife who spoke both from their minds and hearts--some would say too honestly at times, but I appreciated it.  America listened, and we're still listening and we are liking what we hear more and more.  That is why Senator Obama wins the nomination.  The only thing he took was a chance.  He earned and we gave him this nomination.

    Sadly, I feel like Senator Clinton's campaign took the last of my political innocence.  While I should probably thank her, I will not soon forgive her.

    A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future. ~ Leonard Bernstein

    by michstjame on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:03:31 AM PDT

    •  Thank you... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delaware Dem

      for these thoughtful comments. I shared them with my wife who recently expressed similar sentiments. Oh... the things we learn about others and ourselves through the process of a campaign. I suppose that is what makes our democracy strong--sometimes the electorate misses it (as in the case of Bush) but a fully alert electorate will miss very little. A good woman can and will be President, of that I have no doubt. Not this woman. Not now. She lost. Just as Biden lost, Dodd lost, Edwards lost and all the others...to a better candidate. It is no more complicated than that.

      "Damn it, baby, you've got to be kind"__Kurt Vonnegut

      by Texasblue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:13:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chiniqua, sunshineonthebay

    You're extrapolating from the views of your auntie, your mom and Joy Behar to "most women who are Hillary supporters?"  There is no evidence that that is the case.  This is just more offensive and insulting stereotyping of Clinton supporters.  Oh, you forgot to mention that they're uneducated and racist, don't leave that part out!

  •  I don't think most women feel this way, just a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, demoKatz

    vocal minority. To borrow a phrase from Nixon, the silent majority aren't swallowing the hype.

  •  The women who think it was stolen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    are women who are just old enough to have missed benefiting from the wholesale shattering of stereotypes and glass ceilings (or at least the cracking and poking of many large holes in them) that we experienced in the 1970's and 1980's.  This elder generation saw women only one generation younger than them having opportunities they either hadn't enjoyed or hadn't dared to stand up and demand.  They had mixed feelings: delight in seeing such a boat finally sail and despair at having just missed getting on board.

    A lot of that is coming out now in this desperation to see Clinton win one for the team.  Clinton isn't their generation, but she IS the age that they were when they realized the younger generation was getting on a boat they couldn't (or didn't dare to).

    They are my mother's generation, and I understand.  But my mother would undoubtedly have supported Obama.  He represents a new future where Hillary represents a new past.

    (crossposted from superba's "Women actually gave it to the man, as it happens.")

  •  Boo fucking Hoo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phillyPete

    In America today, up is down. Karl Rove taught us that if you lie convincingly, people will believe anything. Nothing was stolen from Hillary. Nothing. She lost. Biden lost. Dodd lost. Kucinich lost. Gravel lost. Edwards lost. All men. They lost to a better candidate. A better leader. Nobody hands the Presidency to anyone.  

    "Damn it, baby, you've got to be kind"__Kurt Vonnegut

    by Texasblue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:06:12 AM PDT

  •  Alessandra Stanley's a TV reviewer (0+ / 0-)

    Now the mind reading is employing TV reviewers? Unbelievable.

    Last night adiarypurported to know

    how wounded she clearly feels. It's as if she is angry that Obama had the audacity to run for President and actually succeed. It's almost as if Obama doesn't have the right, in Ferraro's mind, to run for President!

    Now you employ the mind of MoDo's drinking buddy who knows The View to get into the deranged mind of HC supporters...there must be some crazy, deranged, delusional reason, it can't be that they just don't like him very much.

    I bet I can find a handful of black people who, if I construct the right survey, and ask them why they voted the way they did they'd say, "This is a historic election. We can actually have a black man as president!" I would be intellectually dishonest to extrapolate from that that black people voted for racial reasons. Likewise, I know that some of those folks will expand and say they just can't stand Hillary. So that means, "Black people hate Hillary" or "Obama supporters hate Hillary" or Obama supporters are voting because of his race and their sexism. These would be facts in diaries of your genre.

    In fact, whatever twisted crap, gossip, or unrelated data you want to try to squeeze apart those last few undivided Democrats you can go right ahead and do, DD...

    HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

    by kck on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:08:12 AM PDT

  •  Reportin' a ROBBERY... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alden, Fixed Point Theorem

    ...for the past few decades I have been a proud feminist.  But with comments like Behar, Ferraro, Steinem, Clinton herself and others--well, this kind of inane misinterpretation of what  equality means is ripping the guts out of the word and stealing the essence that once brought us together.

    EQUALITY - good.  BIASED, CRONYISTIC PREFERENTIALISM - bad.

  •  Her comment = the chasm between feminist elite (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama, mrchumchum, nhDave

    and 'feminism of color' and 'grrl power' feminism.

    At some point I'll do a diary on this, but one of the unspoken truths of this campaign is by alienating one of the most reliable voting block in the Democratic party - black women - HIllary Co. insured her doom. She also betrayed a startling lack of understanding of black folks (which undermines Bill's label as the 'first black president)

    Its sad to know that the same sense of entitlement that caused 19th century feminists to be mad that BLACK MEN GOT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BEFORE THEM is still around.

  •  Globe & Mail has much the same to say (4+ / 0-)

    It's quite an insightful piece, which throws in the notion of "boomerism" at work here as well (which explains both the numbers of older folks supporting Hillary, the numbers of younger voters supporting Obama, and the feeling that "something has been taken away"--namely the entitlement of boomers to set the agenda).

    The argument is breathtaking, but it's out there, part of the narrative that many female baby boomers who support Ms. Clinton have constructed. But it misidentifies the enemy.

    It wasn't a cabal of men led by Barack Obama that undermined Hillary Clinton. It was the "millennials," a cohort that came years after the boomers.

    Read it here.

    -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

    by thingamabob on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:15:52 AM PDT

    •  It was also this proud (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thingamabob, ggwoman55

      Gen-x gal. Hillary did NOT earn my vote. These people are elected officials. They serve US. The presidency must be earned.  My vote was stolen in 2000, and Hillary or her supporters are sadly misplaced to equate what happened in this primary season with that travesty. As a female, I am insulted by someone claiming sexism in this case. It was she who had every advantage - the money in the party, the establishment and priceless name recognition. A name attached to 8 years of peace and prosperity. If she and her strategists could not WIN the nomination with that kind of advantage, they don't deserve it. Barack did everything I want a candidate to do. He reached out. He engaged us. He asked us to DO SOMETHING and take responsibility for this thing we call our Republic.

      MAJ G, MAJ O, SGM K, SSG D, SSG B, SrA H, Capt K, SSG A, SPC P, 2LT D come home safe! http://www.booksforsoldiers.com

      by WildcatPatriot on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:38:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a great point... (0+ / 0-)

      And to believe that powerful misogynists within the Democratic Party and the media decided to subvert Ms.Clinton's campaign by banding together to support - not Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, veteran senators both; not John Edwards, who ran as a candidate for the vice-presidency; not Bill Richardson, who has both cabinet and gubernatorial experience - but a black freshman senator from Illinois, is laughable.

      And on a related note, I never get tired of hearing die-hard Hillary supporters claim that Hillary deserved the nomination because of her experience and voting for a man is a sign of sexism when Biden and Richardson were running against her.

  •  Hillary lost and Barack won for only ONE reason (5+ / 0-)

    She voted to give Bush the power to authorize war in Iraq.

    Obama gave a speech against a "dumb war" at a time when that view was extremely unpopular, and politicians were afraid to voice such opinions.

    If Hillary voted against the war, especially if Barack had made a speech for the war, she would be the nominee already!

    All politicians are held accountable for their actions (or should be) through the election process.  She made the wrong decision, Barack made the right one, and that was the demise of her candidacy.

    What in God's name is sexist about that?

    (additional comment:  I would still think that Barack would have given her a fight, with his new way of politics and his charisma etc. but it wouldn't have been enough to overcome, had she voted the right way, years earlier on the war)

    •  My mom does the same crap (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lirtydies

      I said last night about how she's mathematically out of it and her only way to win is to steal it, she's a power hungry egotistical maniac and that I just wish she would get out already. Then my mom goes off on some rant about how we're all sexist because we don't like seeing a woman in power. BULLSHIT! I am fine with a woman in power, just the RIGHT one. Hillary is not the right one. There are plenty of women in office right now who I would proudly support and vote for should they ever run for president. Hillary is just not one of them.

      My mom was undecided between the two until our primary day (Super Tuesday) when she saw on the news someone being interviewed who said something to the effect of "Men have been doing it all along. It's time for a woman to be president!" And that's how she decided on Hillary. What happened to voting for someone based on their political positions, and not their gender or race?

      If you voted against Hillary, you're sexist, so if you voted against Barack, you're racist. Therefore, everyone who's voted for a Democrat this primary season is either racist or sexist.....yeah, that makes sense. And if you voted for Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich or Richardson, you're both.

    •  YOU'RE WRONG... (0+ / 0-)

      Hillary lost my vote for not only voting for the war, but voting for the Iran resolution, and being hawkish in line-and-step with Lieberman and Bush. Then she compounded this by reminding me (with her surrogates' racist attitudes) of what I didn't like in the Clinton presidency: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, Welfare "Reforms," and a certain person's inability to think to consider the progressive causes he supposedly championed when he pulled on his zipper every now and then. How sad. I didn't have that much respect for him when he left office, I did for her though.

      NO, She lost for numerous reasons that have nothing to do with sniper-fire.

  •  If any man took it away from her, it was... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, MrJersey

    ...either Mark Penn or Bill Clinton.   Obama was merely doing what he was supposed to do as a candidate: running for the office.  That's not "taking away" anything;  that's the nature of the contest.  He got more votes in more states; nobody's handed him anything.  He ran a better campaign.

    All the grousing and fault-finding that Hillary's supporters are doing is because of one thing that's too hard for them to accept:  their candidate was short-sighted.  She didn't think this thing was going to go past Super Tuesday.  She believed the DLC rap that she was "inevitable."  For all this talk about "wanting to make sure every vote counts" she didn't plan for MOST of these states to even get a primary.  My state, Mississippi, hasn't had a Democratic presidential primary in YEARS, because it hasn't gone that far.  And Hillary would have been just fine with that.  If Obama were the one behind, we wouldn't be hearing ANY of this talk about "counting all the states" - not from her, and not from her supporters, and if they're honest at all then they'll fucking admit that much, at least.

    Hillary didn't have this taken away from her.  She lost it.  And if any men are responsible for that, it's Mark Penn for doing such a shoddy job on her campaign (but then again, she hired him) and Bill Clinton for fouling things up by running his mouth (and, again, she turned him loose to campaign for her).  

    Nobody's yelling at her for complaining; they're yelling at her for not taking responsibility for what she's done to herself, and for not accepting the facts as they are.

    I've heard some of her supporters saying they'd be disappointed in her if she didn't lose this thing graciously.  Well, they should have started being disappointed in her weeks ago, because she's already lost in any sane scenario, and she did that a long time back.  

    "I am a comedian and poet, so anything that doesn't get a laugh ... is a poem." - Bill Hicks

    by shadetree mortician on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM PDT

  •  DD I enjoy your reading your.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem

    diaries...but this seems like the 'some people say' argument that is oft criticized when made by Bush and others (oft criticized by 'some people' :>)

    This Hillary supporter thinks that the misogyny...not by Obama...but by the press...and charges of race-baiting by both Obama's campaign and the press are what damaged her campaign.  

    However, the loss of African American support by Clinton does not seem to be that deep...given polls that suggest Hillary is seen as an acceptable VP candidate by many African Americans.

    •  Indeed, didn't Clinton last night use (0+ / 0-)

      the "Some people say" tactic in her speech.  I am not sure where you see me using it hear.  Joy Behar is quoted directly, and I have directly heard the same opinion from my family members and other Clinton supporters.  

      Now, you can dispute whether this perception is generally held by most or all of Clinton's supporters.  I did say "most" in my diary, and I understand that I may be wrong in doing so.  

      •  Isn't saying "most" the same? (0+ / 0-)

        Isn't saying "most" from a sample of blog posts and anecdotal evidence pretty equivalent to "some people say"?  How can you criticize on the one hand while doing the other?

        I ususally llike your diaries, but I am finding this one problematic.

        •  I corrected that. (0+ / 0-)

          Putting "most" or "some people say" aside, do you agree with the perception and opinion I criticize in this diary?  

          •  I don't think that (0+ / 0-)

            the idea that Hillary had the election stolen by the evil men is accurate.  I voted for Obama after all and it wasn't because I am a slave to the patriarchy.

            I do have some problems with this diary.  Hell, it might just be that many of the comments here are getting my hackles up, because of the thinly veiled sexism.  And this election has been deeply sexist as well.

            I really think that this sentiment of Hillary voters is a minority one and it's getting people worked up about nothing.  We need to be focusing on how to mend the rift, if there really is one.

            I have mostly stayed away from DKos because of the contentiousness, and I feel like I unwittingly went where I shouldn't have gone.

      •  I just read Clinton's speech... (0+ / 0-)

        ...she did say...'some people say your votes don't count...' I don't think that is the same as the kind of discussion you are raising here.

        I think that your point that people who have the view you criticize are demeaning themselves, Hillary and setting back women's rights movement is problematic.

        Yes ideally Hillary and Barack are evaluated as human beings, race and gender do not enter the picture. Responding to the fact that the ideal did not occur...with disappointment and frustration...and that is how I  interpret any 'general feeling' among Hillary's supporters that 'she wuz robbed', only sets back women's rights or civil rights more generally if that view and those feelings are ridiculed or ignored.

        The DailyHowler just happens to be discussing the 'misogyny' issue today and is worth checking out...though not exactly on this topic...as usual he focuses on how members of the press manage to cover up for each other...when trying to address the issue. However, the examples he mentions, remind that the misogyny was real...there really is no denying that point.  

    •  Race-baiting (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry, but they did race bait. She herself did it. Name-checking Louis Farrakhan, a man whom Obama to my knowledge has never met, is race-baiting, and the timing was just a bit too close to reports of elderly Jewish voters getting spammed with "Obama hates Israel" crap for me to believe it was coincidental.

  •  isn't joy behar a comedianne? (0+ / 0-)

    Sounds like she was making a joke, actually.

  •  This has nothing to do with gender (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RadicalGardener

    But I do wonder why with all the talk about women saying that it was taken away because she is a woman, none of these women acknowledge what it means to be an African American man in the US today.

    •  Have you talked to them all? (0+ / 0-)

      the fact that people are responding to with disappointment to Hillary's loss and feel that sexism in the press played an important role...doesn't mean that they believe racism is not an issue.

      •  Maybe (0+ / 0-)

        But I never hear it discussed.  I have only heard women say that a man has taken it away from a woman. From Gloria Steinam's NY Times Op Ed piece where she says gender oppression is worse than racial oppression to Geraldine Ferraro's statement that Obama is lucky to be black, I have been concerned by the lack of sensitivity in this campaign. Then in addition when Hillary in debates and speeches links Obama to Farakan and the Weathermen I feel that she has been race baiting and red baiting.  

        I feel that the disappointment of many women is real. And that the sexism has been terrible. But I feel that Hillary Clinton has exploited these real feelings.  I have really been upset by  her campaign strategies.  And I don't think that she lost this race because of sexism directed against her.

        But maybe I am wrong.  I would be interested in hearing another side.

  •  My thoughts as an Obama supporter and a woman (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chiniqua, BlueinColorado, demoKatz

    While I think the more progressive candidate won, and that Hillary's failures relate a lot to the campaign she ran, I also DO completely understand the distrust of the process.  For example, on this very board (and remember I am speaking as someone who wants Obama to win) I saw comments connecting Hillary to Fatal Attraction woman, monster who wouldn't die, ..and people defended their use of other loaded language and imagery.  It distressed me in a very emotional way!  Its like those loaded words of "crusade" or "lynching".  They have other contexts but they connect to deeper prejudices and codes . I think everyone has to examine themselves closely on the tone they have taken in this campaign.  Pitting racism against sexism has been deeply harmful.  There are no good guys and bad guys here.  We need to work on this  

    •  The problem is what she has been doing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RadicalGardener

      by her refusal to take on the racist attitude towards Barak Obama in states such as Kentucky and WV and the fact that she has recently used this viewpoint apparently in order to solidify part of her base in these regions is much more appalling than anything I have read on the KOS.

      "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

      Intentional or not, this was one of the worst things I have ever heard a presidential candidate say since George Wallace.
      From the Jesse Jackson remark by Bill Clinton after the SC primary, she and her campaign have used many of the same tactics as the republicans in order to divide democratic primary voters.  Regarding Jermiah Wright, instead of taking the high road she was busy talking about why he did not leave his church, blah, blah, blah.  I would expect any democrat to take a stand against this kind of hatred but she does basically nothing.  Racial bias and sexism are horrible things and should not be tolerated, but there is no room for complaining about one if you ignore the other.

  •  A man did not take anything anyway from a woman. (4+ / 0-)

    her campaign people and her lost it for her

    If u will not vote for the Dem. nominee, no matter who that is, go apologize 2 the youth of this nation. U've helped put in "100 years of war no Choice McCain."

    by Clytemnestra on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:40:20 AM PDT

  •  THANK YOU!! (4+ / 0-)

    I sure as hell was never given any special treatment b/c I am a woman - yes, Blue Waters is a She - and I had to EARN every single thing I ever achieved in this world.

    I demand equal treatment because if I don't get it, it implies I just can't do it myself, because I am a weak, little, un-able woman.

    No pity for Hillary - none at all!

    Coast-to-Coast Pizza-Arugula-Keilbasa Run for Obama! - *Here* - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/5/155525/0947

    by Blue Waters Run Deep on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:49:52 AM PDT

  •  Idiocy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, RadicalGardener

    Ask Behar who's better off in America, white women or black men?

  •  Her biggest mistake was thinking it was hers... (5+ / 0-)

    And that someone dared to try to "take it" from her. Her hubris is what lost her this nomination. Plain and simple.  

  •  A quip: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, elwior

    Yet, most women who are Clinton supporters do feel this way.

    And we know that how?

    Let's not create new generalizations as we combat old ones.

    -6.00, -7.03
    Obama '08

    by johnsonwax on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:54:32 AM PDT

  •  A man? (5+ / 0-)

    A man took it away from a woman?

    No.

    We the people, the majority of us so far, gave it to Barack Obama.

    Our didn't our votes actually count?

    It wasn't any one person's to "take away".  Clinton saying that Obama "took it from her" is ridiculous at best.  The choice is ours to make.  Not his - and not hers.

    "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." - H. G. Wells

    by Diogenes2008 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:54:46 AM PDT

  •  Love it when Hillary says sexism is an issue... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, FishBiscuit

    ...in the primaries but racism isn't.

    She's really something--and it's not good.

  •  But Billary beat Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, etc (0+ / 0-)

    Get a life

  •  The Voters took it from Hillary, not "A Man" (0+ / 0-)

    duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh morons.

  •  She's right: A man DID take it away from HRC (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, BlueinColorado, paiges, karmsy

    Only that man wasn't Obama ...

    It was the moron Mark Penn, who had no idea of how to run in caucus states, or how to run a 50-state campaign.

  •  whoa - hold on a minute: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chaboard

    Indeed, as Doris Kearns Goodwin says, being a woman has benefited her campaign, not harmed it.

    Isn't that the same thing Ferraro argued re: Obama's color?  

    If being a woman was a net benefit, we'd have had a woman president by now.  Or maybe more than a minuscule representation in Congress, or among governors, etc.  It is a liability, even for Clinton, and pretending otherwise is making the same ignorant mistake Ferraro did.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:11:55 AM PDT

    •  Good point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico

      My intention is to say that Hillary's gender really has not been determinative of her success or failure in this race, and that by itself is an achievement in the march towards equality.

      I was quoting Goodwin to point out the mix of opinion on whether her gender was a factor.  

      •  I'd agree with you it isn't the reason she lost, (0+ / 0-)

        which seems to be your main argument.  Fair enough, and that's true.  But it is still an upward march for women on the national stage, so it'd be better not to overstate this as a complete non-issue.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:24:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "I knew they wouldn't let a woman become presidt" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem

    That's what a woman I know recently told me. I've heard overtones of the same idea among other Hillary supporters (women in particular) who I hear calling into NPR or some of the Air America shows I listen to...

    Many of these Clinton supporters buy the whole anti-Hillary media bias and sexism accusation hook-line-and-sinker, they think something underhanded happened in Michigan and Florida, and they are completely unaware of the Clinton campaigns strategic mistakes.

    She didn't blame Obama per se, and after I gave her my take seemed to acknowledge that he had ran the better campaign, but still lamented Hillary's loss because she thought it would have been a milestone for women in this country, and feared that in the rest of her lifetime there would not be another competent and powerful woman politician like Hillary with as good a chance to win the presidency.

  •  "Sexual Identity" is so old-school (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary just needs to get over her Gawd-given gonads, and get a life.

    Her athletic supporters too.

    When a "champion" of woman-kind in Chanel pantsuits begins to resemble a cartoon-character, it's time to give it a rest and cuddle, and snuggle with the "Bill."

    Barack Obama,our next President had it right with his off the cuff remark with his "silly-season" quip.

    I just loved the brush off the suit-jacket shoulder routine.

    I don't admit to too many "cooler folks" than myself that often, but I am burnt toast on a dirty linoleum floor compared to our next President.

    The man has class.

    Own your rights. Know your life, and visa-versa

    by SecondComing on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:14:42 AM PDT

  •  Well put (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem

    I think you are spot on in saying that the "entitlement" argument made by the Clinton campaigns is "crap."  The entitlement theme is just another example of the poor campaign Clinton ran.  Despite being an Obama supporter and having fits of rage at some of Clinton's tactics, I would have been honored to vote for her in November if given the chance.  But she ran a poor campaign and you are right that equality means being judged by your own merits.  Each candidate put themselves forward, one has to win.  The entitlement theme produced these sentiments and Clinton only has her campaign to blame.

    It's amazing what people will do to others in the name of themselves.

    by ABlueKansas on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:17:02 AM PDT

  •  Sad, But Is It Really All That Different (0+ / 0-)

    ..from the oft-stated assertion that's been made here for months that blacks will sit out in masse if "they take it away" from Obama?  Not in any meaningful sense, it isn't.

    You can't pin this on just Hillary supporters - I've seen just as much from our side.  The sense of entitlement set in back in February and ever since the "they better not take  it away from the black guy or the blacks will sit it out" argument has been EVERYWHERE.

    •  Of course it is different. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      daveholden, RadicalGardener

      The concept of the nomination being "taken away from" Obama refers to him having a level of success with actual voters in the electoral process that should reasonably lead to him obtaining the nomination, and then not obtaining the nomination for due to an undemocratic override by Party insiders.  Intimations of the nomination being "taken away from" Obama have never referred to his actually LOSING the voters' support fair and square, because it has been clear for months that that was not going to happen. Even if the possibility of such an undemocratic override is part of the Democratic Party's rules, it is expressly that, an override of voter preferences.  

      With respect to Hillary, there was nothing to be taken away from her, nothing to be overridden, because (notwithstanding the insiders' preference for her at the outset) her interactions with actual voters did not win her any sort of victory.

      Unless being the favorite of Party insiders as of some date in the past is accorded the same moral weight as being the winner of the Party's entire electoral process for selecting the nominee, there is no comparison between the two positions.

      •  Sorry, But In *Both* (0+ / 0-)

        cases the argument has been made that someone winning the nomination by existing rules and a process put in place before the whole thing started would be "taking" it from someone else and consequently incurring the wrath of {blacks/womens}.  In both cases one side has frequently used the argument to try to eliminate one legal, rules-permissible path to the nomination by creating fear of how it would play out in practice. Specifically, in the Obama supporter case it was usually advanced as a scary reason to be against the perfectly legal process of super delegates making up their own minds.  Usually combined with a lot of overwrought rhetoric about "stealing" an election and such.

        And, btw, you'd have a hard time convincing me (despite my being an Obama voter and supporter) that it's at all clear that EITHER candidate won via "success with actual voters in the electoral process".  The numbers are simply too close and are swamped by the magnifying effects of distortions (intentionally introduced by rule) of those results.  Those intentional distortions ARE the deciding margin in delegates in this race.  Which is just another way of saying that Obama was better at building his campaign to exploit and use the rules to his advantage.  

  •  I think it boils down to Emotions vs Critical (0+ / 0-)

    Thinking areas of the brain....too often our emotional areas take charge and our critical thinking areas are relegated to down time.

  •  Your rhetoric clashes with your point (6+ / 0-)

    I was a primary swing voter who voted for Obama but likes HRC just fine. I agree with your point that Obama really won the race, by being a great candidate, and that HRC lost it.

    HRC handicapped herself by voting for the war in Iraq, then she destroyed a lot of the goodwill she won during the campaign by campaigning on the "Wright Wright Wright" and "White people without a college education vote for me" planks.

    But, when you write something like the following:

    Indeed, if you demand that Hillary Clinton be the nominee simply because she is a woman, you are acting sexist yourself, for you are demanding that Hillary be judged only as a woman, rather than as a person.

    Thus, when Hillary supporters complain that Hillary is not winning the nomination because a man took it away from her, then are demeaning Hillary, and themselves, and they are setting back equality for women a couple of decades.

    I hope they are all proud of themselves.

    I think that language is really unhelpful.

    In my opinion:

    a) You're creating something of a strawperson argument -- most HRC supporters would say that they have supported her because she was a great candidate, not because she is a she.

    b) You are giving yourself the right to define what sexism is, and ignoring the possibility that other people might define the term differently.

    c) Instead of saying that you disagree with a particular political argument, you're saying the argument somehow damages the people making the argument. To me, the rhetoric says that you think that people -- including your own relatives -- who are simply making a moderate/progressive argument that we disagree with are lesser human beings because they disagree with us. Maybe your mother fed you, clothed you, wiped your soiled nether regions, and braved diabetes and random sudden death from preeclampsia to have you, but she's demeaned herself (disgraced herself) solely because she seems to have disagreed with you about whether HRC deserved the nomination.

    Obviously, you don't mean that, but that's how the argument comes off given the specific wording that you used.

    In your diary (maybe you say something different in the comments), you don't even allow for the possibility that your mom might NOT have demeaned herself if she thinks HRC deserved the nomination AND she will cheerfully unite behind Obama if he wins the nomination.

    d) In my opinion, the diary also accidentally expresses a version of sexism by, rhetorically, making all women collectively guilty for some women's moves to disgrace themselves by saying that Obama stole the nomination from HRC.

    You write:

    Thus, when Hillary supporters complain that Hillary is not winning the nomination because a man took it away from her, then are demeaning Hillary, and themselves, and they are setting back equality for women a couple of decades.

    First, in reality, I can't believe that Obama, McCain or any members of Congress or any judges, including the right-wingers, or any private individuals, will discriminate against women more simply because some women have had what we believe to be are foolish opinions about the 2008 Democratic primary.

    Second, to me, what this sentence really says is that YOU believe that the fact that some women have bone-headed views about Obama SHOULD set back equality for women a couple of decades. In my opinion, it would have been better to write about how you hope these specific women will have to deal with the shame of having opposed Obama once he wins the Nobel Prize, or something like that. That wording would have expressed your fury at those specific women without accidentally implying (incorrectly, I'm sure) that you think all women will (or maybe should be) punished for some women's support for HRC.
    Translation: because some specific woman are boneheads with respect, all women will be subject to more (and apparently, in your eyes, deserve to be)

    •  Thank you for saying this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sclminc, jedley

      I think you expressed all the problems I am having with this diary, from the strawfeminists to the idea that no aligning with his candidate will "set back equality" for women.  

      Women's equality was never just given to us by men because we behaved.  And I am really wary of women's equality being defined by a man.

      •  Kind of like men are wary of being defined by (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Delaware Dem

        hysterical Hillary supporters.

        •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure if you're assuming I am a Hillary supporter or are just being defensive.  

          If you look at the comment I am agreeing with, you will see that the parts I wholeheartedly agree with have everything to do with this diary's troubling treatment of gender, as well as the reliance on scant evidence that there are histerical women out there blaming men for there loss.  

          Since I go on feminist blogs daily, I would think that I would see some of this mythical man-blaming.  Unfortunately as is the case with anecdotes, I have seen none of this.

          So, really none of my comments have been about the men, and all about the women, so I'm not seeing the relevance of your comment.

          •  I think a huge percentage of feminists voted (0+ / 0-)

            for Obama, anyway.

            The diarist actually DOESN'T trash feminism, or any flavor of feminism, as a whole, but one commenter I responded to, for example, complained about "paleo feminism" with the kind of rhetoric that I'm more accustomed to hearing from Republicans than from Democrats.

            In my opinion, there's a danger that carelessly worded complaints about female HRC supporters could lead to flamewars that could be pretty uncomfortable for plenty of women (and men) who either support Obama already or prefer HRC but would gladly vote for him in the general election. I hope that most of those folks will vote for Obama even if the flamewars get to be pretty awful, but why encourage that sort of thing?

          •  Not making any assumptions about you personally (0+ / 0-)

            Just remarking on the double standard.

        •  I voted for Obama n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  You're mistaken if you don't think there will be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delaware Dem, FoxfireTX

      a backlash from some of the behavior we've seen, though a couple of decades may be an exaggeration.

      You're really understating the mean sort of reaction we're seeing from Hilary supporters.

      At the risk of upsetting you, I'll just leave it at that.

      •  Then criticize specific behaviors in a specific (0+ / 0-)

        way. Example: it is disturbing that at least a few HRc supporters located by reporters apparently will vote for McCain.

        Why not find calm, non-insulting ways to criticize that political behavior instead of personally attacking HRC supporters for holding a specific point of view?

        And, again: the diary itself makes no allowances for women who think Obama stole the nomination and also plan to vote for him. The assumption seems to be that those women all will (or, at least, plan to) vote for McCain or stay home.

        In my opinion, Darmok is fundamentally correct. What Delaware Dem clearly was thinking was, essentially, "HRC supporters who say Obama stole the election are being silly, and, if they vote for McCain in November, that will be damaging to women's interest."

        And that's fine. I agree with that argument. But Delaware Dem went on to add some curlicues that make his diary a lot more inflammatory than that.

        they will vote for McCain are expressing a foolish point of view and

    •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)

      You claim to make points based on the diarist's specific language and then you completely ignore what was written to make your own strawman points.

      The diary is not about all Clinton supporters or all women or all women who are Clinton supporters.

      It's not about men who have issues with their mothers.

      It is specifically about women who have made a completely asinine argument to explain away their candidate's defeat in an election.

      I'm also going to out on a limb and suggest that the diarist does not secretly believe that women's rights should be set back because of this insanely stupid argument by some women, or that it would be justified if it has that result.  Instead, it is a reasonable belief that some people - including some women (shocking, I know) - will view statements by Hillary and her female supporters as "proof" of their unfortunate view that women lack certain capabilities.  Put another way, this episode will do nothing to dissuade those that have that view.

      •  Thanks. I agree with this comment. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RadicalGardener
      •  S/he's attacking Dems based on their arguments (0+ / 0-)

        rather than calmly attacking their arguments.

        S/he's saying the people making those arguments have "demeaned themselves" (e.g., disgraced themselves) by making those arguments and set back all women by making those arguments.

        Why does making any kind of normal political argument disgrace a person?

        If the HRC supporters were arguing that children should be fed to dogs, THAT would be disgracing those women.

        If the HRC supporters are simply making an argument that we find foolish, that ought to be an opportunity to win them over with facts and rational arguments, not by suggestions that they have disgraced themselves and deserve to become less equal to men for decades.

        Maybe one problem here is that "demean" can have a number of different meanings. Maybe it would be better if the diarist would have used a more common word, or a word with a narrower range of meanings.

        •  Sorry, attacking based on PERSONALITIES (of (0+ / 0-)

          course, I'm doomed in any competition based on quality of proofreading skills.)

        •  Close (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Delaware Dem

          The point is that the arguments are so stupid that they demean, or maybe more accurately, reflect on some intellectual inferiority, of the person making them.  

          I make a living making arguments.  And there are arguments about which people have different, albeit reasonable, points of view.  Most disagreements fall into this category.  You make it sound like the diarist took Hillary supporters to task for their view on health care reform, and if that was the case, I'd agree with you.

          That's not what it at issue in the diary, like, at all.  Instead, it has to do with the other type of argument: that which is so far beyond the pale that you have to wonder about the intelligence of the person making it, as in "does that person really believe that?" or "does that person think I'm so stupid that I'll believe that?"  The idea that "a man took Hillary's nomination" is in this category.

          I believe completely in calling out a patently absurd idea, and in no uncertain terms.  I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for reasonableness from Hillary's camp for months now, and we don't have much more time to waste.

  •  Its really sad (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishBiscuit, RadicalGardener

    The worst part of it all is that its women's causes that are going to take backlash.

    Racism, sexism, who cares.  If you're making those the centerpiece of this campaign, you're as bad as the assholes who put us in Iraq.

  •  How dare Hillary! (5+ / 0-)

    First off, I consider myself a "hard working white American" - I am also a soccer mom, a small-business owner and several other things that the Democratic party finds highly desired in a voter.

    I can't believe the nerve of Hillary Clinton! Listening to her and her staff makes me want to throw things at my television!

    How dare she whine about "sexism" when she openly uses the race card to her advantage! I am so angry right now I could just spit - as shown by all the exclamation points.

    •  Agree, I just went on a rant after reading (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RadicalGardener

      some of the "examples" given for sexism in this campaign.  Every time I hear one of these "white voter" references I want to (and have) turned off the TV or tuned to another channel like a good movie.  I've heard a lot more of that than any sexist overtones that are being trumpeted by the Clinton campaign and her supporters.

  •  Actually I think the entire Hillary candidacy (4+ / 0-)

    has set back equality a couple of decades.

    So in the past, a woman seemingly couldn't have a credible run for POTUS -- and now she can, if first she establishes her creds as First Lady?  How is that not horribly demoralizing and discouraging for those of us who do not choose to build our careers around our husbands'?

    I will be SO happy when Hillary's run is over and we can go back to searching among genuinely credentialed female politician for our first female president.  I am planning to try to forget this ever happened as quickly as I can.  (Since she is my senator, that is going to be difficult -- I'll have to see what I can do about that.)

  •  My mother-in-law who is 68 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem

    feels this way. She has stated that she intends to write-in HRC come election day in November. Her daughter and I will be working hard on her from now until then to change her mind. Wish us luck...

  •  Wow She Got Beat Fair And Square Ran A Bad (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishBiscuit, RadicalGardener

    Campaign And Its The Fault Of Men. I'm Perplexed.

    Obama '08
    Dont Be Fooled. CHANGE Is Real And It Starts In YOU?

    by DFutureIsNow on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:45:27 AM PDT

  •  MyDD also has a post (4+ / 0-)

    ... that equates it to a more qualified woman being passed over for a job promotion to a less-qualified male.

    As a woman who has put up with plenty of crap in the workplace (ie started my career in oil companies in the 1980s), I understand the metaphors but I realize neither has anything to do with fact.

    A job promotion is nothing like running for political office. A promotion is decided by one (or maybe a few) higher-ups in a company. An election is decided by millions of voters (yes, some of whom are sexist or racist or incredibly ill-informed).

    And yes, the media definitely influences people's knowledge of and feelings for a candidate. But I disagree that the media picked on Hillary. She was the front runner for a long time and as such, she got more scrutiny. As soon as Obama became the front runner, he went under the media microscope.

    Yes, the media talks about what pantsuit Hillary wore. That's the equivalent of them talking about whether male presidential candidates have "gravitas." Or about how male candidates shed their jackets and roll up their sleeves when talking to working-class voters. All of these are incredibly stupid discussions made by talking heads who have way too much air time. It's not sexist; it's the reality of media to focus on the trivial. Heaven forbid reporters should actually be informed enough on the issues to keep the conversation focused on things that are relevant.

    I think the cries of unfairness from the Hillary supporters are rooted in emotion, not fact. If and when she loses, blaming it on the "bullies" (ie good old boys) is playing a victim card that denigrates all that Hillary HAS accomplished.

    And the fact is, if the tables were turned, she and her supporters would be adamant that Obama should drop out.

    •  Unbelievable! A job promotion is something (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RadicalGardener

      you get when you earn it through job performance.  The only way to earn the Presidency is to win an election.

      So those at MyDD agreeing with the notion that the overqualified Hillary is being passed over for the promotion for an unqualified male reveal their sense of entitlement.  They believe Hillary DESERVES to be President.  It doesn't matter that she lost the election, she just DESERVES it more.

  •  What did Hilliary Say.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, snafubar, Tx LIberal

    If you can't stand the heat...get out of the Kitchen. Well, in politics there is ALWAYS going to be one winner and numerous losers. She's losing, no one stole anything from her...I feel for the her supporters who invested heart, soul and money to her, but honestly...she's not going to win this one and to yell foul because of fabricated metrics only makes you look foolish.

    •  can you imagine any of the other losers... (0+ / 0-)

      going on like this? Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, etc....

      "Counting" the votes by omitting those that don't go in your favor, rewriting the rules to gain advantage, whining and fomenting racism and bad feelings...

      I can't.

  •  Keep your eyes on the prize (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sanuk, Tx LIberal

    Do you want to attract the half of the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton to become Obama voters? Then stop reducing their reasons for voting for her to them being a. women or b. stupid. Being condescending will not get you the results you want.

  •  What Hillary has taught us: (5+ / 0-)
    1.  That to win, you have to act like a man
    1.  You have to threaten to "obliterate" other countries
    1.  You have to pretend that you shoot things in your spare time
    1.  You must wear hideous pantsuits, because wearing a dress would be demeaning
    1.  You have to pretend that you like to shoot whiskey
    1.  You have to play the race card
    1.  You must have very limited feminine appeal, and if you are losing at any time, fake a couple of tears
    1.  NEVER quit, even though the fight is over.
    1.  Use racial stereotypes to demean and discredit your opponent
    1.  Lie when necessary, especially about incidents where you were dodging sniper fire like a REAL man would -- never let the truth get in the way of a good "manly" tale
    1.  Insure that your supporters understand that anyone who doesn't support you is a SEXIST pig and get them so riled up it is either you or the opponent on the other side of the aisle
    1.  Bully your opponent, even though he has been nothing less than a gentleman, but HE MADE YOU LOSE
    1.  Never admit that losses could possibly be your fault. Explain that all losses are because a man "took it away from you"
    1.  Stay with the philandering husband, and let him go out and say murderous things, but that's OK, because you are a liberated woman and let him have his own voice

    An unbelievable puncture of the glass ceiling.  I know that I am so damn proud to talk to my daughter about all the gains women have made and constantly use Hillary Clinton as the example for the feminist ideal.

    •  Actually, (0+ / 0-)

      what she has shown is that doing all this, you (still?) wont win.

      The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

      by Lesser Dane on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:07:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She could win as Governor...of WV... (0+ / 0-)

        ...or Kentucky...or any of these other "deal breaker" states she is so fond of. The one's with all the uneducated white voters, who are working so hard...

        I mean she obviously doesn't need to stay in New York or Washington with all those rich elites - they're doing well without her in spite of her.

        But she had better figure out how to enjoy Jack Daniels before Crown Royal.

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:01:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What she taught us was that you can't run a shitt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fhcec, snafubar

      y campaign and win.  And that's it.  But thanks for providing the example of what we're talking about.

  •  As a woman it makes me sick (4+ / 0-)

    I can't stand the idea that Hillary "should" be the POTUS because she's female. How demeaning. I don't think Obama should be POTUS because he's bi-racial,  I think he should be POTUS because he has the best qualities and policies for that position.

  •  Sexism (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, Delaware Dem, Kim from Pgh PA

    Women are not a "suspect class" in that they are not a minority subject to oppression by a majority.  The election isn't a corporation or other institution where it can be said that men dominate.  In the democratic primaries, women consistently account for a majority of democratic voters.  How can someone lose the primaries with the gender odds stacked in her favor and then claim sexism?  Hillary lost, and that's why she should get out of the race now.

  •  "The View" is still on the air? (0+ / 0-)

    How does that crap stay on the air?!?

    "The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by FishBiscuit on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:19:06 AM PDT

  •  Who's complaining? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't see any reason to complain. Senator Obama has most likely won. He's closer than ever. Yes he could have waited another eight years - and that would have meant a golden stretch of sixteen consecutive years of Democrat rule and he did say earlier that 2008 was way too soon for him to accept the Challenge - but he changed his mind.

    This is politics. If a woman gets swept under the bus - so what? We don't care how Senator Obama wins - only that he wins. This isn't about democracy and we all know it. This is about claiming power. Getting to the epicentre of power and paying back for services rendered. It works that way in Chicago and it works that way in Washington DC and nobody's foolish enough to want to change that. Certainly not Senator Obama. He understands how the game is played better than most.

    And if along the way we can also get some CHANGE - then it's been worth it, right?

    Napoleon said you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. It looks to me like perhaps someone's broken that woman's eggs. Too bad. Collateral damage. Move on.

    •  I think Obama cares how he wins... (0+ / 0-)

      ...he sure has been meticulous about following the rule of law.

      I certainly care how he wins, and I'm looking forward to playing by rules we all agree on.

      Cynicism corrodes everything it touches.

  •  It makes me feel ashamed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, fhcec, Kim from Pgh PA

    It took me a moment to put my finger on what I feel, as a woman, when I hear (as we all have over the last few days) about Clinton supporters whining about sexism because Obama won the nomination fair and square. Other than anger, disgust and fear for what will happen in the general election, there's one more emotion -- shame. I feel deeply mortified and ashamed as I contemplate the prospect of women being seen as whiny sore losers who have to be humored and appeased instead of being able to compete fairly and take our defeats with dignity. It gives me some comfort to know that Hillary and her piss-and-moan brigade don't even come close to speaking for all women. But I wish they'd buck up and quit sniveling.

  •  Wow... you said it best! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kim from Pgh PA

    Yesterday, in my own misguided way, I tried to say something very similar.  You summed it up perfectly!

  •  Arrrggghhhh (5+ / 0-)

    As a woman the pundits consider to be solidly within Hillary's demographic, i.e. white and over 50, my response to Hillary's egocentrism can best be described with loud growling and much gnashing of teeth. I haven't fought and scrabbled and bitten my tongue as a woman of the middle boomer generation in a man's business world for three decades to invest emotionally in a candidate that feels she's fucking owed the Democratic Presidential nomination simply because she's a woman. And I really am having a difficult time understanding those women of my generation who apparently agree with her. Gah! The whole point of the women's liberation movement was to get society to accept that a woman is the equal to a man in any circumstance, not to get men to allow the "little lady" special privileges. I never asked for any. I never got any. And I don't much respect those who think they're due them.

    One of my best friends is a Texas delegate to the state convention for Hillary. I asked her recently why she still supports HRC. Her response was that she tries not to listen to what Hillary has been saying recently, because she (my friend) really wants to continue to support her. This is from a very intelligent, very successful woman, who has made her mark in what is still pretty much a man's world of engineering. I really had to bite my tongue to keep from pointing out the dissonance in her answer.

    Then she asked me why I, as an older woman, didn't support Hillary. My response:

    1.  HRC voted for the war in Iraq, and has been totally unrepentant about it.
    1. I don't believe in dynasties. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton isn't good for democracy.
    1. Her campaign has indulged in blatant race-baiting. I can't abide that sort of thing.
    1. She used two words that, imo, ought never again to be uttered by an American President, or by anyone hoping to become President: massive retaliation. Sorry, I lived through the Cold War, and time for that kind of response to world events is way past.

    In short, it has nothing to do with the gender (or color!) of either candidate. Granted, there are still many in this country for whom a candidate's gender is a deciding factor, either for or against. But, y'know, I really don't think it's the majority of voters who feel that way. So, as far as I'm concerned, HRC can take her bitching and whining and her Karl Rove politicking and her gender concern trolling and serve them up in a nice souffle for someone other than me, thanks.

    Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Those who study history are doomed to know it's repeating. - JWhitlock

    by Alice Venturi on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:33:58 AM PDT

    •  Another woman over 50 who agrees with you (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alice Venturi, fhcec, mrchumchum

      I know a woman (in the same demographic category) who was talking early last year about starting a democratic activist group to find a candidate we could rally around, explicitly stating that that candidate was not Hillary, because she voted for the Iraq War and then refused to admit she was wrong, but mostly because she is a divisive figure, and she has traded on that divisiveness, damaging the Democratic Party.  (And this before the campaign began!)

      I do think that the U.S. is more sexist than other countries with regard to our lack of tradition or acceptance of female leadership, but Hillary isn't the candidate to change that, and it's not because she's a woman.  

    •  This 42-year old woman agrees! These women (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alice Venturi, Schwa SF

      are just ignoring all the horrible tactics that Hillary and Co. has been employing, and just keep following her like a blind little puppy. Obama doesn't deserve their disdain -- he has run a better campaign and has treated Hillary with much more respect than she has treated him.

      Can't these women think for themselves and see logic? Or are they just so encapsulated in this Hillary bubble that they've lost all sense of reason? Is it worth losing your dignity over, just to follow Hillary into the ditch? And all the while looking like whiny sore losers, embarrassing and shaming all other women who are looking on in disbelief, shaking our heads as we look down at the ground -- followed by a big <SIGH>.

      I feel like most of them will come around, after the nominee is chosen and things settle down (hopefully, including everyone's emotions).

      Ready to support Obama "on day one!"

      by Kim from Pgh PA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:34:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Listening to NPR "Talk of the Nation" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem, Schwa SF

    They have reps from NARAL and Emily's List on.  They're both being very reasonable.  However, a woman just called in and said she will never vote for Obama.  Her reason?  The media has been so unfair to women.  Not Obama.  The media.  On what planet does that make sense?  I can easily understand the anger, but sheesh.

    •  I didn't mean that the media hasn't been unfair. (0+ / 0-)

      I meant it makes no sense to oppose ANY Dem just because the media is wildly unfair.  As if it hasn't been unfair to Obama.  Rev. Wright, anyone?

    •  it doesn't have to make sense. some perspective: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrchumchum, Schwa SF

      Understand that a lot of these women who are overreacting have probably not been regular voters in the past, and probably would not have voted this year... or would have voted for whomever their husbands told them to.

      Understand that the women who are most upset probably have no real interest in politics or any understanding of the primary processes.  

      They personally feel cheated of the opportunity to vote for a woman.  I imagine they have projected upon Senator Clinton their own hopes and are projecting their own disappointments and frustrations.  

      A politician looks forward only to the next election. A statesman looks forward to the next generation. THOMAS JEFFERSON

      by Wanda517 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:52:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Funny, they're addressing this right now. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wanda517

        Ramona Oliver, from Emily's List, just said that while Obama didn't cause the media to be unfair, he benefited from it.  Which seems like it's just going to stoke the anger, even if it's true.  Elizabeth Shipp (NARAL) vehemently urged women to not blame Obama for the MSM unfairness.

        I understand what you're saying and, yes, that makes sense.  Since I'm not a woman, sometimes I have to be reminded of how deep the frustration and anger runs.  So thanks for reminding me.

  •   And it was Timmeh and Tweetie who tried so hard (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem

    considered "inevitable"

    And failed.

    Only the PTA? You know what the PTA stands for? Three things I respect and fear. Parents, Teachers, and Associations. [Rob Petrie]

    by eroded47095 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:46:25 AM PDT

  •  What condescending pap. (0+ / 0-)

    Your diary's approach is exactly how to approach Hillary supporters that feel something was taken from them - tell them they never really had it anyway, and tell them they're demeaning their candidate (whatever that means).  And don't worry about trying to understand how they feel so you can address their concerns; that's clearly a waste of time.