I think for women who are old enough to have witnessed the days before second wave feminism, what is being hurled against Clinton is sickeningly familiar. For those women who are younger, it is a fresher experience and that may well be why it seems to them that the hatred hoisted aloft and bantered about is surely rooted in something Hillary said, is, does or seems to be.

I have never seen a qualified, progressive candidate for the presidency face the wall that clinton is facing. I am stunned by the number of progressive bloggers who dismiss her without a second though while toasting Dodd, Biden and Richardson. I am thunderstruck by the blogosphere that paints Obama as the second coming of FDR and Jesus rolled into one and yet considers Hillary too rightwing to support. Hillary supporting the war - bad. Dodd and Biden supporting the war - rarely remarked upon. Edwards apologizing for his vote - good. Clinton protecting herself from flip flop charges in the GE - bad.

eRiposte - thank you for doing what you do. I've always thought of the left as the reality based community. I will never make that mistake again.

lorelynn, "I've always thought of the left as the reality based community. I will never make that mistake again."

That's my own feeling exactly. Whatever I am, it's damn sure not "progressive" with these cretins. I can't tell the right from the left where Sen Clinton is concerned.

It's really sickening!

...the seemingly insurmountable weight of 16 years of being the target of misogny and hatred...

See, iac. If you don't love Hillary enough you are a misogynist. Hell, it's even the title of the piece.

She's always worked twice as hard to get half as far as the men around her.

Yep. Like being First Lady of Arkansas or the United States. Tough work if you can get it.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.

Chef's chocolate salty balls, maybe? Tom Cruise in the closet? Orca, the killer talk show hostess whose vagina holds folks hostage with a gun? Cartman with an antenna coming out of his ass? South Park spares no one.

Now, if you want issues, I, for one, have been considering how Hillary won't take responsibility for her AUMF vote -you know, where she voted for war, yet takes responsibility for the success of the "surge". So, she blames Bush for the failures she enabled yet tries to wrap herself in the success of the "surge" when the "surge" is a failure. Damn, ain't that convenient.

I think I would rather listen to the words of a guy from Illinois stated at the exact same time Clinton was voting for death and destruction:

"I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that" "invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale" "without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Which one would make the better president? Say "Hillary" so you won't be called a misogynist. Then let your real vote be heard by the Hillary Hive assclowns.

phidipides, don't you have a marathon to run? A message to deliver?

The fact of the matter is that Tom Cruise is not running for president of the United States and those are the kind of thinking skills - the inability to compare mocking a religiously obsessed movie star with a highly qualified candidate for president of the United States and breaking the gender barrier - that lead someone to assume that a candidate about to run against the rabid right should apologize for supporting a war after the last candidate was pilloried for being for it before being against it.

You are only a misogynist if you engage in misogynist rhetoric. if you reduce Hillary's qualifications to being Bill's wife and ignore what it is she has done herself before and during her marriage, then you're engagin in classic misogyny. If you complain about her voice or her laughter - that's misogyny. if you hold her to a higher or different standard that you hold the men who are running - misogyny again. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Phiddipides, you are a misogynist. You couldn't resist the dig at her being first lady as if all she did was hold teas. Yes, Hillary worked very, very hard as first lady and actually accomplished a great deal. She was considered Bill''s most deadly advocate in meetings and was an essential part of any administration activity - the same can be said of very few other first ladies. but you can't bring yourself to admit it.

As for the AUMF vote, Obama votes with Hillary - not with the people who opposed the war. He himself says he doesn't know how he would have voted. I'll go with Hillary any day of the week. I want the war over, and unlike Obama who hasn't held a full time job in years, we all know Hillary is going to show up and do what she said she will. We'll be out of the conflict within a year, and well on our way to peace. With Obama - who knows? Maybe he won't bother to show up.

Phidipides,

I guess you conveniently missed some other sentences in the same post in Fish's article.

"This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton’s candidacy. You may dislike her policies (which she has not been reluctant to explain in great detail). You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change."

I must say I was pleasantly suprised though that there were no references in your comment today about her "whoring" and "spreading her legs", unlike your comments to that effect in response to one of my earlier posts. No misogyny there I presume?

Don't forget this link: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/Election2008/TLC-eriposte_Dem_primary_support.htm

It is an invaluable source. I found myself beset by Obamabots the other night and I sent it to them just this afternoon. No response. I wonder if they bothered to read it, or are preparing a summation of all the things that are wrong with it... or are lamenting their absentee ballot that sits in the post office.

That would be too optimistic. I just hope they talk to me again.

Thanks, Eriposte, for that wonderful resource. I'm hoping that if Hillary wins the nomination (which is seeming less and less likely) you will create one of those for use against McCain.

Here's my comment at Hamsher's column at Huffington Post:

Hillary hate? That's just too easy an excuse. Hate requires intimacy. I do not know the senator and neither do most of those who criticize her. While the language used to criticize her may often go over the top, it is not indicative of hate of her. Rather it signals frustration, almost always intense frustration with her triangulation, her lack of humanity, her greed (and that of her rogue of a husband), all of which have been well documented (see below). That you cannot see that for yourself speaks volume about your own character.

No, Ms. Hamsher, it is certainly not hate. It is, though, a way of telling her that she has let all progressives down and dragged their dreams of a better society into the gutter. Her husband had done that already. It was thought that, given that she, too, had been a victim of his callousness and selfishness, that she would join the progressive cause and promote its values like none other. Instead, she joined Bush and the neocons in doing this country in.

I am writing this also in the memory of all the men and women who gave their lives in Iraq for a DUMB war that she signed on to, AND to the more than 1 million Iraqi men, women and children who have died, many in atrocious conditions, due to that war and to her husband's previous policy in that country.

COMPARE: Link 4
[End of quote]

See, iac. If you don't love Hillary enough you are a misogynist. Hell, it's even the title of the piece.

I assume you're talking to me, p-dip. And sadly, you don't realize these fine women are talking about you. Shame.

Gene,

Perhaps you would care to notice that a huge number of those people who died in that war did so during the many years Sen. Obama continued to vote to fund it, unlike other Democrats who did not. Thanks for your pearls of wisdom but I have more faith in a used shoe salesman.

The last sentence was the best:

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

There is a slogan there.

What I don't understand (as a guy) is the fact my female friends have to justify themselves--repeatedly--in voting for HRC: she's qualified, he's not (especially now); her domestic policies and rhetoric are progressive while he sells out UHC for personal political gain and spews rhetoric that pleases the right and the left's expense; and, lastly, they trust her position while they're just not sure with Obama. The bonus for them--women in their late 20's--is that she's a woman, but it seems that because they're all women they have to somehow prove a false negative, which is impossible.

Meanwhile Obama supporters can proudly say that he'll change the "face" of America without scorn and contempt hurled at them. They can say he'll "heal" racial divides merely by his existence and have that be glorified by the press.

I'm voting for Hillary because I'm terrified about the economy, health care, and just the general direction of our country. I need to trust the president will be competent and know the enemy is not "partisanship" but conservatives.

However, I seriously doubt she'll win tomorrow, especially CA and MO. How the hell can she win when the entire establishment--the press, stalwart Democratic machines (Kennedy, for ex.), and "liberal" blogs--is rabidly against her? She can't. She won't. Obama will crush her tomorrow, but at least I did my part and voted for the best candidate. That's all one can do right now. I don't even know how, if at all, we'll ever tackle the blatant bigotry directed at HRC.

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

So if I say, "I'm voting for Obama not because he's a dark skinned male-but because I am," it's OK right?
That's a relief, thanks, I was worried I was a misogynist because I intend to vote for Obama.

And how many women suffer from misandry if they vote for Hillary? Or should we even be able to talk about that.

Fucking primaries.

the inability to compare mocking a religiously obsessed movie star with a highly qualified candidate for president of the United States and breaking the gender barrier

I'll be nice, but I'll play.

Hillary is Jesus? Holy God, how did I not know! I think it's entertaining that you would limit anyone's 1st Amendment Right and prevent them from engaging in Free Speech on behalf of Hillary. You must be a "liberal" or a "progressive". If she gets in office you can be the one responsible for policing such things, K? Like, arrest some veteran wearing a t-shirt that doesn't support Hillary. Buschco does that now. Why not you!?

Phiddipides, you are a misogynist.

Indeed, I am. I am a big Broke Back Mountain Hollywood left coast liberal bone smoking faggot. Queer as they come. I don't want anything to do with vaginas.

Hillary has truly had a difficult time breaking all of those barriers she was confronted with as First Lady. She's had 35 years of experience, and still can't account for her AUMF vote other than saying a man lied to her. Go figure.

Hillary worked very, very hard as first lady and actually accomplished a great deal.

Like giving her 93' healthcare plan to major health insurance players, and still wanting to do so now? She loves that lobby money!

As for the AUMF vote, Obama votes with Hillary - not with the people who opposed the war.

Are they, like, sitting together? Rather than an actual vote, all I have is Obama's statements from the exact same time Hillary was authorizing war, death, and destruction. It's the only record I have. But yet you seem to be able to confabulate any number of instances of transgressions and happenings, or the purity of purpose of Hillary. I still find it odd that she would blame Bush, a man, for her vote, yet accept responsibility for the success of a surge that isn't working. She seems to be easily misled by men and really seems to be clueless about the surge. You don't find that odd or problematic?

phidipides, don't you have a marathon to run? A message to deliver?

Wrong phidipides. Think horses. I bet one with your astute perceptions has to google it.

"whoring" and "spreading her legs"

Why would I spare her the same thing I level at Harry "never met a lobbyest I wouldn't blow" Reed? When have I ever called the majority of Congress people anything other than whores for the corporate interest? You no doubt think I reserved this just for Clinton. You are wrong, Margaret. As you so often do of recent, you take it completely out of context.

The success of the Republican vilification of Hillary Clinton can be measured by the number of Democrats who have signed on.

hancock

One of the nasty habits of "the left", esp those self-avowed centrist or moderate voices, when complaining about "special interests" is to feminize it and then bash the straw (wo)man.

How long have "moderate" Dems -- and their Swing Right consultants -- blamed Roe v. Wade, and women who object to open-ended persecution from fanatics generally, for being a selfish special interest group that makes life oh-so-tough for Dems?

Of course, there's always the option of directly confronting the right wing assholes on the phony piety of their "pro"-life posture but then DINOs would be stripped of their own holier than moi moments for the camera.

Well, I have to give some credit for the Obama sentinels who monitor every word and piece of history to distort it into some type of "actual" accomplishment of his. He lied about his nuclear monitoring policy - he never had legislation passed anywhere. As for the "progressive" or "left" in this country, most of them are bitter beyond even their hardwired sexism. A vote for Obama is a vote to see millions of disenchanted youths, and people of all races, realizing that saying "we hoped, we tried, but failed" deal with another four year mistake. The point that is being missed is that if anyone spoke of Michelle Obama in the vulgar, hateful, misogynist fashion that they claim to be speaking about HRC the candidate, it would be construed as racist - not sexist. Because to most men of color and most self proclaimed progressives and leftists women are the things that bleed for four days but don't die. To them they are property, semen receptacles, and servants. If I hear one more female Obama supporter say that is not the reason why they are not voting for HRC - yet make that incredibly offensive statement anyway - I will be thoroughly convinced that every Obama supporter is just a very scared, self-questioning, throwback to some primal age. Men have said things like that my entire life. No change or progression there. I used to call them Republicans.

LOL - Phidipides is pathological. He even lies about his own name.

How sad. I'm surprised he's not GOP.

This essay is filled with excess. You begin with a tour de force of framing; then graduate into persecution complex in the middle; and finally round it all out with the notion that the election is all about validating a woman's right to be president; and opposition to Hillary Clinton is misogyny. By criticizing Hillary, one demonstrates that one is a woman-hating cretin.

Erica Jong will at least conceed that Obama is not evil. The Big Frame here is, as per usual, eriposte, one of Obama [mania] as against Clinton [reason]. You have been consistent in hammering this message home. This all begins to sound rather mad and hyper-defensive when Hillary (and by extention...all women) are surrounded by enemies on all sides. The "so-called left" to name just one. Some of her adversaries are rabid; but probably most or all are rabid. She has become an empty vessel for all our misogyny. This would be analogous, yet not analogous, to anti-Semitism. Can you hear yourself, eriposte? This is a little over the top.

You then evoke every slur or condescension leveled at women from time immemorial, as if it were an airtight reason why a particular person, Hillary Clinton, should become the next president. I'm sorry, but that kind of structure is not an argument.

"The world of Hillary haters" where "all you need is hate" is a sophomoric construction. This may be the SOP of republican operatives. It is however, not very useful to the progressive folks who would like to heal this country's wounds, and not exacerbate them.

Speaking as someone watching this from up North I have to say the level of misogyny and clear sexism running through the critiques of HRC has been stunning from the so called reality based/progressive community. I have to agree with Eriposte on this one, there is way too much of it being considered acceptable while anything that can possibly be twisted into some sort of racial/racist political move against Obama is done so. The "Fairy tale" and MLK/LBJ examples were particularly telling in this. I expected this from the RWNM and MSM, I am sickened though to see that the vast majority of the so called progressive left is no better.

I don't care if you want to support Clinton or not on her merits as a candidate, but when you claim she is unfit because of her husband, that is sexist. The fact he is a former President does not make that any less sexist in nature, because it says she can't make her own decisions without the man being there to tell her what to do. Then there was Obama saying about how he didn’t know which Clinton he was running against, same thing, and yet that was applauded by the audience and ignored by the media for critique on sexism grounds. The tears smear (since there never were tears, just a slightly choked up voice) that has run around forever, and whose campaign manager again was it that after NH went on TV to complain about where Clinton's tears were for Karina victims, which is not only sexist but clearly racist code wording, but that was not seen anywhere near as offensively racist as MLK/LBJ or Fairy Tale was.

It seems that if you truly are progressives then you have to believe in the inherent equality of human beings, be they male/female black/white/brown/purple with pink polka dots EQUALLY. Yet there is clearly a massive double standard when it comes to examining language for racial connotations and sexist connotations within the progressive community, why is that? What really disgusts me with the Obama campaign about this is that they have to have seen this sexism in the media and instead of calling it out for the vileness that it is they capitalized on it at every turn. If he truly believes this postpartisan spiel he gives then his "principles" would have required him to denounce the sexist attacks as unfair against HRC while continuing to attack her on the issues and her record. If he had done that I suspect he would have skimmed off a significant percentage of the Clinton women's vote, because he would have shown his sensitivity to that kind of prejudice as well as that around skin colour. It was watching him and his campaign feast on the media sexist bashings of Clinton (let alone the campaign's own willingness to go to that well on a few occasions) instead of following through on his principles about such being of the past and to be denounced instead of taken advantage of in his new political paradigm that proved to me Obama does not practice what he preaches. (Please note I am not saying all the MSM criticisms of HRC are sexist, but there clearly is more than a minor amount of it out there and to pretend otherwise is incredibly disingenuous or shows you do not have the first clue about sexist and misogyny including all too likely your own)

That so many of his supporters cannot see this speaks poorly to their ability to weigh hard evidence against what they want to believe, and that is no better when focused on a Dem than it was in 2000 when focused on a GOPer, Bush. You don't want Clinton as your nominee, fine, I don't have a problem with that, just don't cloak your reasons in the sexist/misogynistic manner in which so many of you do. Stop and consider exactly what you are saying and see whether it is rooted in her gender in some way or solely on her qualities as a political candidate for the highest office in American politics. Quite honestly I am bitterly disappointed in the progressive community online in the USA right now over this, and since I am not able to vote in this election because of my nationality I am not emotionally invested in either side winning in this primary dispute, so trying to dismiss my observations as somehow partisan shilling will only underscore the intellectual dishonesty of anyone making such a claim against me. I want a Dem in the WH this Nov because if your Supreme Court gets one more movement conservative judge then the legal threat your nation poses to mine will be far worse than Bushco and the GOP have already made it. As it is I will no longer travel into the USA because the rule of law is clearly no longer in force, especially if you are a foreigner. I never thought I'd see that day, and I quite resent those that brought it to this. I also fear the kind of inspiration the rulings such a court would give to the wingnuts up here to try to replicate, it is bad enough we have a genuine neoconservative (Straussian) running our government who has internalized the culture war politics that the GOP thrived on, they don't need any more help.

Besides, I like Americans by and large and would hate to see them lose so many of their freedoms and see so many of the progressive gains of the last half century wiped out by court order, that would truly be horrifying to have to watch.

I wanted someone like Edwards to be our nominee. Like all great candidates, he did not win because Americans do not like straight talk. Americans thrive on politicians that tell them what they want to hear. No one exemplifies that better, than Mr. Obama. He can talk up a storm, but has nothing to back it up. So the choice is between two politicians who play the game Americans like. Hillary and Obama. It would take pages to list all of Hillary's accomplishments. Obama is proud to have organized voters in Chicago and to have been the youngest editor of the Harvard Review. If I'm missing any of Obama's accomplishments, I'd be glad to add them, but even if ten more were added, there would be no comparison. Both candidates are smart, but Hillary is most knowledgeable about almost all issues. There is a reason for that, she is genuinely interested in learning about the issues to find solutions to the problems. Hillary deserves to be president.

I don't know about other women, but when HRC is the target of baseless attacks, something in me recognizes it as something I experienced too.

One more thing. I've seen the fanaticism from the Obama supporters. Michelle Obama said that she would have to think about supporting HRC if she was the nominee. My decision to support Obama has been simplified. If he is the nominee, I'll just vote "present". That's a vote he'll understand. The Obamas talk of unity is about making compromises with Republicans, not supporting other Democrats.

What would we do without you?

You are appreciated.

For me it comes down to the AUMF vote. She can't defend it and the more she tries, the worse she looks. A smart woman like her voting for that and now using some of Shrub's talking points on Sadam? I don't think so.

I prefer a candidate who demonstrates better judgment on those silly little issues like, oh, you know, war. Does that make me a woman-hater?

Oh, shed me a tear. This sounds like Clinton supporters getting desperate now and resorting to lame sympathy ploys. I think a lot of us in the progressive movement--fuck your bona fides, thank you--have figured out Clinton will lose the race if she is wins the nomination. While I don't particularly care for either, the GOP alternative is not something we want to live with again. Besides, Clinton unforgivably supported Bush and the war when it benefitted her, pissing off a whole lot of us who haven't forgotten. So if the media don't treat her fairly, tough shit!

Dang, that was an awesome post. I'm a 32-year old male who can't wait to vote for Hillary Clinton today. I'm voting for her for her incredible intellect, fierce dedication to the Democratic Party, and legendary work ethic. But part of me is happy that in so doing, I'm telling the media to go and stuff it.

If only enough other voters see the same thing. But once the media beast makes up its mind, it's hard to stop. See Gore, Albert A., and the 2000 election.

I am really worried about phid. Could someone please call his local police, and ask if they would send a cruiser over to check on him?

I fear scout may have him duct taped to his computer chair with jumper cables clamped to his scrotum to induce him to create these un-phiddy-like (albeit clever) posts.

Yes Hillary has baggage. But it has already gone thru the x-ray machine.

Obama is not a shoe-in either. The Rezko thing is going to be Whitewatered to death if he should be nominated.

And don't forget about the millions of would be "Deliverence" cast members who will never vote for an AA no matter what.

How utterly sad that we as Democrats have become so divided and hateful.

It is possible to not vote for Hillary for other reasons than that she is a woman. Try these two - corporate Democrat and more of the same.

It is possible to not vote for Hillary for other reasons than that she is a woman. Try these two - corporate Democrat and more of the same.

Even Republican women are more honest than "progressive" men. "How do we beat the bitch?" Just say it out loud, you know you want to.

This will seem a bit strange to the Hillary lovers; but many of us don’t hate Hillary. My discomfort with her comes from a few basic issues.
The main issue that takes me out her camp is the WAR and her inability to at least admit like others that it was a mistake. I don’t care if it makes her a less attractive candidate and neither does the loved ones of those who have lost their lives in Iraq.

I don’t care for Bubba trashing Obama and I sure as hell don’t care for her explanation that “we all have dedicated spouses.” Most of us don’t have dedicated spouses who are ex-presidents; not to mention who the heck would be in charge if she got elected? I think she needs to run her own campaign, NOT BUBBA.

Finally, I don’t like Bubba’s comments going into South Carolina and I don’t want to drag our country through the OPEN Cesspool that would be another Clinton Administration.

My feelings are about Hillary the candidate.

hillary's vote on the war was reasoned and rational..whether one agrees with it or not..i did not...but i accept her reasoning on the vote..it was her decision and it's a lot different then giving a speech against the war holding no national office...

Dennis;
Geez is that the only statement of my posting that you disagree with? (LOL)

Phidipides,

When the only nasty stuff that comes to mind when you criticize Democrats in Congress (male or female) are words that are used to demean females, then you should think about what that means.

“hillary's vote on the war was reasoned and rational”

I think it is reasoned and rational too (if you are a butt kissing inbred moron). Look, you can give all the reasons and rationale in the world but it was a mistake back then, it is a mistake to defend it now; and it is a mistake into the future. PEOPLE DIED! Get it!

So take your reasoned and rational comments and SHOVE IT!

Dear Eriposte,

Thank you so much for your article. You articulated something that has been making me melancholy for some days now. Hillary is treated as so many different bad things, is so ridiculed, it is clearly about more than just a vote on one or two issues. Yes, I didn't like that war vote, either. But Obama has also been very squishy on certain issues, too--and he's also been willing to put down people on the left in an unfair way, I think. Overall, Clinton has been clear on her beliefs of social justice and progressive ideals for many years. One example of the kind of thing I find uncomfortable: Slate had something on its site comparing Hillary to Tracy Flick from the movie Election. If you recall, Tracy Flick was an overbearingly perfect girl (except for having an affair with a teacher). Despite/because of her competence, she is seen as one of those perky people you just can't stand. But even in that highly entertaining movie, the character is unnecesarily and viciously sexualized ("she had a wet pussy") etc. So ridiculing Hillary by comparing her to Tracy Flick is definitely a put down. And yet, ironically, Tracy Flick even in the movie was absolutely the most competent possible person to do that job--as Hillary is obviously the most competent person to be president. I feel that there's pressure not to vote for her despite the fact that she's clearly the best because that's not what the "cool" kids do.

So take your reasoned and rational comments and SHOVE IT!

So you're a Republican? Shoulda figured.

alexandra:

I think you should vote for Hillary because it seems to be your conviction. My question to you is are you voting for her simply because she is a woman or are you voting for her because you say “she's clearly the best because that's not what the "cool" kids do.” My suggestion is that you examine your feelings on that matter. Either way it is your choice and I encourage you to follow your gut feelings.

Good Morning Snark:

To answer your question "no." But thanks for asking. I am a dem who would like to win the whitehouse for a change. And you? Let me guess....thinking....butt kissing Clinton water carrier. Did I get it?

As predicted, now a faction of Hillary supporters are claiming they won't support Obama (to spite him or his supporters, I can't tell which).

Oh yes, opposition to Hillary's candidacy = "hate". Of course.

And I wonder---is there an "acceptable" basis upon which to oppose Hillary's candidacy, eriposte? I'm quite curious, now that your rhetoric has turned to "misogyny" and (of all right wing tropes!) "hate". Are we all "haters" now?

I find this over the top despite your culled quotes, "findings" and musings, sorry.

I'd say the rift in the party is now complete, and a good 10% of liberals now "hate" the opposing Dem candidate (and their supporters) enough that voting for them in the general is inconceiveable. People don't vote for someone they "hate", ever.

We didn't have enough votes as it was to defeat McCain, and now we've cut off our nose to spite our face. So get ready for some serious lamentations come Nov, gang. And there's nothing that can be done about it now, the blood is under the bridge.

Let me guess....thinking....butt kissing Clinton water carrier. Did I get it?

In fact I was supporting Kucinich. I have no particular devotion to either Obama or Clinton. In fact, as an unaffiliated voter I won't even have a say in which one is the Democratic nominee. There is not much difference from a progressive policy standpoint between the two so I'll support whichever one gets the nod because either one of them is miles better than the alternative. Personally, I don't quite understand all the hysterics from either side. They really are not that different.

Awesome post. I appreciate the effort you went to dig up some many examples.

What kills me is the classic defense that I've gotten on other blogs. They accused me of playing the martyr or victim card when I complain about their tactics. To which I responded playing the martyr or victim would have been staying quiet. But that is how every every bully and tyrant - of all political stripes - answers to being called on their bullshit.

Euzoius,

Did you actually read my entire post? Did you read my response to phidipides where I specially call out the portion that says there are legitimate reasons to oppose and not vote for Hillary?

Please just read the full post before you reach your conclusions about what I am or I am not saying.

angryman..

certainly chose the right moniker...it was a very reasoned vote...somehow i don't think you can understand that....and admitting now it was a mistake..would that be for your benefit or hers?

Dennis:

Thanks for your kind response, but I disagree. In terms of whom it benefits: As a result of her not standing during this critical point in our history she along with others UNNECESSARILY sent our young men to DIE and as a result of our support for them drained on our national treasure. It benefits the families of those who died to understand what happened and why it happened and that people who made the decisions understand that it was a MISTAKE. It would benefit me and millions of other Americans to know that OUR VOTE will not be thrown away to another warmonger.

Republicans, like Hillary will never apologize in the face of overwhelming evidence that points to the war being the wrong war; in the wrong place and the wrong time!

she has stated that if she knew then.. what she knows now..the vote would have been different..she ..along with everyone else was deceived..

This is genuine and heartfelt, worth a read...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/4/21328/25410

Let's hope enough people see through the oboma fairytale, media bias, and vote informed.

YOU didn't say anything about "allowable" basis for opposing Hillary in this post. It's a collection of block quotes by other writers with a sensational, and divisive, screaming headline: Paroxism! Misogyny! Sexism! Hate!

It appears that for a great many people, President Hillary has turned into the culmination of feminism, despite the "I'm not voting for her because she's a woman" tune. Fine, and who knows the percentage of her supporters for whom this is true. I don't, no one does.

But now you denounce those who oppose her candidacy as Sexist, Misogynist and Hate-filled, even if you (or on of the quotes) theoretically grant that there are (throw away) reasons for a person of the Left not to support for a second Clinton presidency.

Do you think that headlines like this are going to be forgotten? Demonizing the members of the left who oppose Hillary's candidacy reinforces the now enormous split in the party. It generates irreversible rancor in the Obama supproters and affirms the hysterical outrage of the village Hillbots (which exist just as surely as the "Obambots" exist).

Yes, it's a heated primary. But I don't appreciate being called a misogynist, sexist, hater engaged in a paroxism of rage against Hillary simply because I think that the great majority of the country is not very enthusiastic about having the unprecendented situation of returning the same presidential couple to the WH, especially one who has demonstrated such terrible foreign policy judgement as Hillary Clinton.

It's your blog, as everyone immediately says, I've just hung out here for the last 4 years. But this is going too far for me. "Paroxism", Good Christ.

This primary is bringing out the worst of what it means to be liberal as once again political correctness is used to bludgeon opponents.

It was easy to predict that every Clinton supporter would be labeled a racist and every Obama supporter a sexist. The sad part is that there is a grain of truth in it.

Thank you for writing this.

Gimme a break. Do you really want our presidential list to go like this:

Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton

DON'T YOU GET IT? IT'S ABOUT DYNASTIES.

Euzoius,

As usual, you hit the nail on the head.

euzoius, smooth beat me to it.

SPOT FUCKING ON!

To what extent is the coverage of these two candidates the direct result of the candidate's own campaign style?

I have heard Hillary say many times that it is time for a woman president. (I agree, but I don't think it should be the main criteria.)

I have never heard Barak suggest it is time for a black president. (If you've heard him say that, let me know)

My point is: Is the coverage a direct result of the attitude presented by the campaign style?

I'm curious, could anyone point out the exact quotes where it says if you vote for Obama, you're a misogynist? Or where if you don't vote for Hillary, you're a woman hater? Where does it say, if you don't love her you're misogynist? Where, exactly are Obama supporters are being demonized? These are specific questions that should have specific quotes to support the accusations.

Thanks for your cooperation!

What has surprised me is the deep seated and irrational hatred, often transgressing into sexism and misogyny, among people on the alleged "left", that has certainly made me question the bona fides of some segments of the progressive movement in this country.

I suppose eRiposte is talking about Hillary supporters here?

bill clinton in my opinion was a good president and left this country in pretty good shape..first bush was a one termer and the second wasn't even elected..so what is this dynasty bullshit...it's about who is most qualified to be president..forget the last fucking name...i think it is hillary...barack obama is not qualified and will be eviserated in the general election..it is why the msm is trying to elect him...

That was beautiful, eriposte.

SoS, that could mean Obama supporters, or Kucinich supporters or even Richardson supporters. What the some obviously refers to is the people who have been making sexist statements and using misogynistic language. phidipides isn't for anyone, for example, and he's been one of the worst offenders. I haven't seen you make such comments; you go out of your way not to. This article doesn't apply to you, does it? So why does it anger you so much?

I think Hillary can take Missouri. As I said on tbogg, if there are enough rural Democrats out there and women in the big cities, she can win. Also remember the Kansas City Star endorsed her.
Even poblano gave Hillary Missouri. I don't know what he has predicted for today.

Dennis,

What are the qualifications to be president of the United States?

I most be missing something.

smooth,

The ones that I know of are being a natural born citizen and being at least 35 years old.

Do you think Hillary Clinton is otherwise unqualified to be president?

Good work Eripost, the oboma whiners doth protest too much...

Here's a good read, essay by Robin Morgan (a veteran of women and civil rights movement) highligting much the same things you are, and thus the double standards denied by many (pathetic) rank and file obama apologists.

Goodbye To All That

Found at MYDD

It's Not Your Imagination

30+ years of public service..watergate counsel..fighting for childrens rights..womens rights..senior partner in a major law firm..8 years of being 1st lady which involved being very involved in policy decision..a birds eye view of one of the most sucessful presidencies in a very long time..health care advocate and expert..2nd term senator from the state of ny...1st lady of arkansas..it's a very long list etc..etc..

Personally, I don't quite understand all the hysterics from either side. - snark

Careful there, snark. You're bordering on misogyny with that line.

hys·ter·ic /hɪˈstɛrɪk/ Pronunciation [hi-ster-ik] –noun

[..]

[Origin: 1650–60; hystericus Gk hysterikós, suffering in the womb, hysterical (reflecting the Greeks' belief that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances in the uterus); see hystero-, -ic]

Of course I should point out, this comment is an example of 'snark' as well. ;-)

So why does it anger you so much?

Well, its all about paroxysm isn't it?

Paroxysm... Sexism... Misogyny... and Hate... "Oh my!"

Democrats, no matter who's running, should all be praising the fact that we have a Woman and an African-American running for the President of the United States of America. This is historic, a proud moment...

And I guess I'm a little tired of my favorite place, TLC, being all Hillary, all the time. Not one article, zero, zilch, nada in favor of Obama.

It angers me because its so negative. And it should be pointed at the repukes! Remember, the real enemy!

1st first lady elected to the senate..first woman elected statewide in ny

"even insinuating that by appreciating Clinton's record I am racist (revealing themselves instead)"

Funny that this is the exact thing Taylor Marsh has been doing to Obama supporters for months, insinuating that by supporting Obama and Opposing Clinton, they are mysoginists (revealing herself instead?).

This debate is absurd. I support Obama because I've yearned for a real, inspirational leader for years and he is exactly that. He can lead.

Hillary, on the other hand, cannot lead THIS COUNTRY. I'm not saying it is right or fair, but after 8 years of Bill as president, both he and Hillary have become triangulating personalities that will never be able to unite the country. Plain and simple.

Some people, especially younger people, want to exercise their right to vote in this election for real change. Hillary would definitely be a change from Bush (and I would applaud her for that), but Barack has the chance to be a change from the entire political establishment of the last 30 years, democratic and republican.

i like barack obama..but he should have waited..

Well, in my eyes Eriposte's general presentation here is that those opposing Hillary, particularly prgressive males, have shown that they "really" are engaging in a "paroxism" of "misogynistic" rage against Hillary. And that the "hatred" has been massive in quantity; systemic, not incidental.

Thus, one quoted blogger opines "But what I've seen happen in this primary season has sickened me, including coming from so called progressive males, which on the whole have been a disgrace, though there are a few exeptions, but very few". Think that's a broad enough brush?

Anyway, it seems to me that's the uncontroverted rhetoric of this post, and I feel it's gotten out of hand and doesn't identify any distinctions in Hillary opposition---indeed, one would hardy come away thinking there are any acceptable arguments for opposing her, tossed off lip service qualifiers at best.

Do we really think that a large bulk of "progressive males" are actually motivated by sexism and overt or covert hatred of women? That that is what really "explains" most of the opposition to her within the party? Really?

As I said, it's over the top for me, although one can hardly deny that it exists. I feel that proportion was not much reflected upon here.

sorry, me.

Joe, You didn't go below the fold.

dennis, Yes, she has many fine qualities. The one that disturbs me is that she has never met a lobbyist she didn't like. Those favors are going to have be returned at the detriment of this country, again.

seven of six..

didn't say she was perfect..politics ain't beanbag..there is no one who does not come without baggage..for me it's about electability..i do not think barack obama is electable..i think she is... and that she can withstand the repug barrage...i believe that she is a good and decent women who wants to do what is best for america..but she is not perfect

Another thing that's going on here is that Obama is being made anathema to Clinton supporters as a result of the claimed heinous attitudes of some (most?) of his supporters.

Not a great play for the possible future.

Angryman,

I think you should consider that one of the big clubs the GOP used against Kerry was his changing position on the war. If Hillary admits she was wrong, it becomes something the GOP uses against her in the general election.

I read your reasons you don't like her and they all sound like bullshit. You don't like Bill trashing Obama but apparently don't mind the trashing Obama gave Bill over and over again before Bill swung back. You don't want Bill campaigning for Hillary but you're okay with Michelle and Elizabeth campaigning for their spouses.
'
What's quite clear is that you are holding Hillary to a different standard than you hold the other candidates. Obama can attack Bill and Hillary but you don't like it when Bill strikes back. Hillary's spouse can't campaign for her because he is more accomplished than the other spouses,. Typical misogyny. That's all it is.

From Gene above:

While the language used to criticize her may often go over the top, it is not indicative of hate of her. Rather it signals frustration, almost always intense frustration with her triangulation, her lack of humanity, her greed...

Gene, are you saying that your frustration with her (perceived) negative qualities are a good enough reason to excuse the (admittedly) over the top rhetoric detailed in this post? To me as a woman, that's like a wife-beater saying it's okay to hit her because she talked back, or a rapist saying she deserved it because she wore provocative clothing.

From RandyBastard:

Is the coverage a direct result of the attitude presented by the campaign style?

How does the declaration that it is time for a woman president (which you say you agree with) translate into an "attitude" that deserves a reaction like the ones presented here? And even if there were an "attitude," see my response to Gene above.

I have never heard Barak suggest it is time for a black president.

What do you think the "Yes we can" slogan is all about? Just because he doesn't say it explicitly, doesn't mean he's not strongly hinting at it. Only this morning I heard John Conyers on the radio, and the first sentence out of his mouth was "Obama's the new MLK." Are you saying that's not about race? But I digress, and you've tried to distract. Even if Obama is not pushing race and Hillary were pushing sex, do you think it would warrent such things as this lovely Hillary urinal target? Before you answer, imagine a picture of your wife, or daughter or sister in that target, and tell me it's okay to do it.

- iamcoyote -

What I was saying was this: if you say things in a campaign, the media will tend to reflect that. Especially if it plays into their biases. Hillary has not only mentioned the need to break the barrier, she has actively sought the female vote on the basis of her being a woman. In many states, women are receiving Clinton campaign mailings at a rate of six to one and every one of them mentions the need to vote your sex.

As for the "Yes, we can!" slogan: Obama started using that just days before the Nevada caucus. It is the slogan of the Culinary Workers Union, which had just given him their endorsement. So, in point of fact, it has NOTHING to do with race.

Lastly, regarding your snotty 'suggestion' that I'm trying to distract, I'd like to respectfully suggest you piss off. I'm just trying to have a discussion, just like everyone else here and I very much resent you interpreting my motives based on, I'm sure, something in your past experience.

I'm here out of a desire to make my country a better place, not to trick anyone into agreeing with me. So let's cut the crap and get to the business at hand.

Well, to be fair Hillary Clinton's not the only...target.

Hillary has not only mentioned the need to break the barrier, she has actively sought the female vote on the basis of her being a woman.

And what I asking was what is wrong with that, and do you think it's a good reason to use the misogynistic language catalogued here? Obviously, your answer is yes.

And here's the end of Obama's "Yes We Can" speech:

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can't join together and work together, I'm reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with and stood with and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don't tell us change can't happen.

When I hear that we'll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who is now devoted to educating inner city-children and who went out into the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don't tell me we can't change.

Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can.

It was a speech about the racial divide, with a nod to the unions by incorporating their slogan.

lorelynn:

I get it! Any male who says anything against any Clinton including Bill is a misogynist…yeah we get it.

“apparently don't mind the trashing Obama gave Bill over and over again”

What far off Galactic Universe do you live in? If you noticed, Obama’s exchange against Bubba was a one way bashing! Obama was in a bad spot yet he remained respectful to the former President. If he bashed him he would loose the AA vote, if he didn’t say anything he looked weak and went down in the polls. Now rewind your brain a few weeks so you can read the headline to understand who was bashing whom. Many others had to intercede to stop Bubba from going off on Obama including Sen Kennedy and Rep Clyburn. When Obama finally complained publically people said he was a whiner.

“don't want Bill campaigning for Hillary”

I don’t have a problem with Bill campaigning for Hillary, as a matter of fact he is compaigning for her now. The only difference is his daily attacks on Obama and other comments he made in SC which many described as "UNHELPFUL."

“What's quite clear is that you are holding Hillary to a different standard than you hold the other candidates”

Horse hockey! The only difference is that Hillary by virtue of her being a prior first lady has a name advantage. The downside of that is she has a lot of baggage namely BILL and all the crap that comes with him. (Recent stuff as well as prior stuff)

Finally, I don’t give a crap what you think of my reasons; I am sure you are aware that I think you have your head up your ass. I had to say that so that you wouldn't think I am a misogynist.

- iamcoyote:

And nowhere does he say 'vote for me because I'm black and I'm going to be a black president.' He always says 'vote for me because I have the vision it takes to bring all people together again, and I will be an AMERICAN PRESIDENT' Believe that or not, iamcoyote, but you can't say the rhetoric is the same. It isn't.

Check out this article and what it says about the speech you quote: (hint: they say it came as a signal to the Nevada union voters that the next stop is in their back yard) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22575934/

Also, I failed to mention earlier that John Conyers is not a part of the Obama campaign. He is a citizen of this country and he can say whatever he wants. As for the toilet thingy, you can't possibly be equating that as any kind of political speech, so I don't understand your point. It is the work of awful people who want money above all else, and if there were money to be made putting my wife's picture there, they would gladly do it (and she isn't a politician).

Well, to be fair Hillary Clinton's not the only...target.

Gosh, that makes it all right, then, I guess. Sigh.

euzoius, so what you're saying is that since the wording of some of the paragraphs is imprecise, making you feel uncomfortable, and despite all of the disclaimers saying that these over the top instances of misogyny are coming from some progressives, (forget that anyone indulging in this behavior whether in political speech or everyday life has no right to call themselves progressive), women are overreacting to the hate speech and should STFU. Never mind that we women feel that this kind of language denigrates all of us; your feelings (and those of the other protesters here) are way more important. Got it. I'm shutting the fuck up now. Thanks for your input.

Dennis,

Hate and mistrust are the children of blindness.

Oooops...sorry dennis

...addressing seven of six

Gosh, that makes it all right, then, I guess. Sigh.

Did I say that? You presented it as an example of sexism, hence imagine a picture of your wife, or daughter or sister in that target...

But it's not about sexism. It's about marketing that capitalizes on the general divisiveness of American politics. They'll put anyone's face on there that they think they can make a buck off of.

SOS, I wasn't sure what you were refering to, my bad ;-) I just read some more 'below the fold'.

Eripostse's montage of clipings hit the nail on the head, and the hostility in these comment threads only go to prove the underlying premise.

There are fewer sites promoting Hillary than her opponent, and more attacking her than her opponent. The first of these needs to be reversed somewhat before the net can be considered balanced.

Thanks TLC.

They'll put anyone's face on there that they think they can make a buck off of.

See, I like the humor in the bu$h target urinal but not so much if it was Hillary. Only because it's a criminal republi-con politician versus a Democrat running for President. Not a woman thing.

I really think a Larry Craig urinal target would go over great! Not because he's gay but because he was caught in a restroom.

And your right coyote, I would be offended if it was a picture of my wife there. I'm her 'brown' knight, in 'wrinkly', shining armor!

Thanks, eriposte. You've written the post I haven't had the stomach to write myself. Carefully collecting all the evidence of hate just hurts too much.

The thing that hurts worst of all: the folks on supposedly "our" side, the "progressives," who can always find a more "important" battle to fight than sexism.

We're not supposed to get into an Olympics of -isms. Nobody's suffering trumps someone else's.

That's true. Totally, entirely, completely true.

It's true all ways. You have to care as much about my suffering as I do about yours.

If my suffering doesn't matter to you, you're just fighting for privilege.

"i like barack obama..but he should have waited.."

Posted by dennis at February 5, 2008 10:36 AM

I agree. We could have had a united party with the first woman president, followed by the first and by that time more experienced AA president.

Barack should have realized his run would split the party and was either too selfish to care or he did not realize it would happen, in which case he is not as "brilliant" as Oprah keeps saying he is.

Leave it to the dems to fuck things up as usual with a sex and race war.

Seems like Obama is a blank enough slate that the suckers who always go for the 'new and improved' product Y over product X, have found their flash in the pan champion. But if you think some lawyer from Harvard means changing anything except the color of the sheets in the White House, you are fooling yourself.

The Hil-Haters, that includes Rush, KOS, Huffington and most of the so-called lefty blogs, have had a long time to refine and rationalize their hatred. Just like the right-wing, who will they have to direct all this hatred at without a Clinton? Is a lot of it self hatred? Yup.

Too bad the Dems don't have any actual left or even liberal candidates. But the corporations who run everything wouldn't like that. Look what happened to Edwards.

And, once again, the progressive dewds come out in droves to show us just who much like their right wing buddies they are when it comes to misogyny. After this hugely long piece these total douchebags are still reducing it to "If you don't vote for hillary,you're a misogynist" - proving, once again, that there is no depth of stupidity boys won't sink to in order to prove their he-man woman hater cred.

Oops, one more question before I STFU: If it's okay to point to African Americans and ask them if they thought something Bill said was racist and everyone is supposed to shut up and listen and don't try to argue, why is it that when women all over the blogosphere have been talking about how they're offended by this language and eriposte gives examples of women who are disturbed by it, it's deemed overwrought, or a ploy, or even justified because "it's Hillary?"

Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton = No thanks!

That and how long she's been in Washington is my only beef with her. I want someone with a little more idealism and cleverness in his voice, because thats how you get people to work with you. You don't make demands, you don't imply that you have more wit, or that your the most rightous, you just talk them into it. If Obama has proven anything, it's that he sure as he'll can talk anyone into believing he can walk on water! I think that's where all the skepticism towards him is coming from as well, my own included, but I've decided he's the right man for the job. No sexism intended of course.

jake s..no offense but your post baffles me..i have no idea based on what you said why you would vote for obama..because he's a smooth talker?..i think it's one of the main problems with him..he is a bit to smooth...but where's the beef?

Well, he did a ton of bipartisenship in Illinois, and we have one of the most dysfunctional state governments in the country. All his ideas read pretty soundly. He believes in making the Federal completely transparent, much like he did here in Illinois. I believe his legislation here in Illinois may have a lot to do with all the uncovered corruption in recent years as well.

You don't speak like Obama when your saying things you don't believe, it takes conviction to speak like that. When your a lying, arrogant duechbag, you speak like Bush Jr...

Dennis:
C'mon now! Where's the beef? How about setting your brain ahead a decade or so. You are a "mindless Clinton water carrier." What in the heck is wrong with a leader motivating individuals to accomplish goals or motivate them to strive for higher progress or things that many didn’t think was possible? (THE KIDS CLINTON HELPED SEND TO THEIR DEATHS IN IRAQ UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT)

Jake S. May you should support someone else because you seem to be confused about Obama. Obama is daring to try something different which is the problem. When you try to upset the status quo you have to endure people (women) wrongly calling you a misogynist. Bottom-line Clinton is more of the SOS and Obama represents change from the norm.

I think that whether or not HRC wins today or tomorrow or this or next year, or ever again, she is the one who has laid bare the festering misogyny that was only thinly covered in our country. The history books will have a ball with this.

lorelynn makes a good point about why so many young women don't get it. I hadn't thought of that. But by and large, I find that so many young women take for granted the rights they have and despise everything about feminism, from the word to the activists. It's really a sad, sad situation.

My question to you is why do you think Obama isn't going to use his smooth talking to truely fight for good?

Jake S. May you should support someone else because you seem to be confused about Obama.

Lol!

I'm sure Obama would appreciate your efforts to dissuade people from voting for him.

Jake S.:

What do I have to do to convert you to a Clinton water carrier? You seriously should think about supporting Clinton. This "smooth talk" crap is total BS.

Coyote please convert Jake S. to your camp becaue I am not sure we want him. (LOL)

Oh yeah, he's also worth the least amount of money of any of the candidates. Sure he's taken from everyone who's wanted to give to his campaign, but he's the poorest guy running in terms of personal wealth. He wasn't spoon fed daddy's boy. He hasn't become another greedy, corrupted old trib like McCain. He's not one of the powerhouse CEOs like Romney who's greed and idealogy are largely responsible for where the country is right now. He's not a religious tyrant like Huckabee, and he's not a once idealistic first lady who's given up on change...

He speaks with conviction, and I think he knows how to bite feeding hands. I'm done sitting on the fence, I have to go vote in a couple of hours!

Jake S.
Dude I have this. GO VOTE!

Uhh, I think if you look at all the most successful Presidents, I believe smooth talking opponants into submission was one of their playing cards :) People don't respond to demands and insults, you have to convince them kindly ;)

A lot of hopelessly self rightous liberals often forget this as much as the crazy right... And believe me, I'm one of those hopelessly self-rightous liberals! But I understand the power of charm and words!

You are right Jake S. Now go vote! You don’t want to show up at the last minute...GO!

And now a short commercial break from the Jake 'n angryman show.

Obama is a millionaire and preaches like Gomer Godbot. Wait till Rezko gets Whitewatered to death.

TIKI:
(This is serious)
You are so vehement against Obama. If he wins the nomination can you support him?

I can't decide which one to support. I go back and forth because both candidates are too conservative for me.

I think we are going to see either the most racist or misogynistic campaign we've ever seen. We've already heard the dog whistles from both sides in the primary--and I have to say, it's disheartening and disgusting to see. We're Democrats. Tolerance and equality are supposed to be our basic values.

The Republicans won't bother with dog whistles. They'll go all out. They won't be able to restrain themselves. If Obama is the candidate, the national electorate will be disgusted by the racism and it will backfire on the Republicans. If Clinton is the candidate, the misogynistic appeals will work to some extent because few people will give a damn. That's where we stand on women's rights as a nation right now, and it sickens me.

Thank you so much for compiling these posts. They're some of the most thoughtful, honest, intense writings I've seen about the campaign against Hillary at any point in the campaign, and they clarify and condense things I've thought but never been able to articulate so well.

Dennis,

I hope you are not telling any kids that Obama is not qualified to be president. The kids will be confused when they take their high school civics class.

I had a feeling the commenters would prove your point about misogyny, and clearly they have.

Thanks for writing the truth!

The charge of misogyny is being used as a mallet to deflect all manner of criticism of Hillary. I have read below the fold and have seen the charge of "secret misogyny". Thought crime has to be next. I have a bad bad feeling now about Clinton in the White House. She is now innoculated against serious criticism of any kind from any political direction. The magnitude of all the republican's loony criticism is lumped together with any informed criticism and it all becomes white noise.

Even you Hillary supporters know that the evil of HMOs will not be removed from Clinton's health care plans ever. I seriously doubt that the accountants will be stopped from making the life and death decisions. Poor people are going to be forced to pony up money for the insurance. The body of human being is not analogous to an automobile that you have responsibility to pay liability insurance on. This country is sick. You Clinton supporters know that she is four-square for the American Empire, for predation of world resources, and a big bad Pentagon to back us up. Nothing but a rearrangement, a new style of the old plunder.

This progressive party has witnessed the systematic exclusion of the progressive candidates, the betrayal of Lamont. And I blame both Clinton and Obama supporters. We are left with the two most conservative candidates that this corporate owned party can cough up. I think you are both addicted to pretty lies. You may be getting the president you deserve; but our country deserves better.

I don't think I've ever seen anything as politically vulgar, or just plain vulgar, as the melodramatic swooning that's gone on with eriposte's threads in the past few weeks. The mincing charges and countercharges of racism and misogyny are just so demeaning and humiliating, coming from the Obama and Clinton camps; and if it continues I'm sure that it will prove the ingenuity of democrats to lose an election.

The high aspiration of democrats becomes a transformation into trusty Blue Dogs, who will roll over, and let the republicans scratch their bellies.

I don't respect the heedless explosion of rage that is eriposte's article. I understand the hideous excesses to which it responds; but that does not excuse the mob psychology to which it seems to appeal.

Thanks for the great post.

Thanks for the great post. Someone had to say it.

Having read this blog and its comments, it's amazing how many people who declare themselves as progressive STILL DON'T GET IT. It is a sad reflection not only on the Democratic Party but of where the progressive movement really is in this country. When Colin Powell was considering running for the White House, I told my husband that the country would elect a black man before they'd elect a white woman because racism is unacceptable to many people who consider themselves liberal and progressive, sexism is not because in the end, men stick together more often than they stand up for women. I'm a black woman who is well educated and 3rd in line at my company. My supervisor is female and she had to fight for equal footing in the company with a man with less education and less experience. I've seen the scrutiny she goes through and at our exec meetings and we often have 'gender battles' with men who in nearly every other instance would be considered extremely liberal and if you look at their positions on women's issues are liberal in that domain as well. It's different, however, when it's a competition, and suddenly gender comes into play.

What's disturbing about the overall treatment of Hillary Clinton is the lack of respect she is shown overall. If Barack Obama were treated that way, the media would be accused of being overtly racist. Why is is consistenly OK to refer to sen. clinton as 'hillary' and sen. obama as 'sen. obama?' it's a sublte sign of disrespect that even most women miss bc we're so used to the subtleties of sexism.

Hillary Clinton isn't the only one, I've seen women shot down, talked over and dismissed too often in the world of 'journalism' and tv punditry by everyone else on a panel if she is the only woman. I've seen women be harder on Hillary Clinton because, like me, they know that when women defend other women, men often devalue what you say even more. Barack Obama escapes this scrutiny because little is known about him, his speeches are inspirational and attacking him would make the media appear racist. Hillary Clinton understands the last one well.

This democratic race has talked a lot about the color of Obama's skin, CNN even did a special report on Race and Politics. Where's the one on gender and politics?

Race and gender should have absolutely NOTHING to do with a vote. In the beginning I supported Obama and Clinton equally even though I'm a NYer and have met Clinton. I support her more now because I've read his resume, seen him in debates and the only position I sort of agree with him on is the war but since he funded the troops just like Clinton, I'm more with Kucinich on that so I don't see a big difference there. I just prefer her health care position, her immigration position, and her responses during debates on world affairs just seems more knowledgeable. Although I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson, I totally agree with him that Obama is 'fresh meat' and that the Republican machine will do to him what they have done to every candidate like him who has gotten the Democratic nomination (a la George McGovern who was before my time)---destroy him. Lets face it, with the exception of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton recently, Democrats seem to have a problem knowing how to beat Republicans in the general election, and in the end, your resume or lack therof will count.

If Barack Obama was a woman, black or white, with his paper thin record, he wouldn't stand a chance. He would be getting as mamy votes as Dennis Kucinich who is the only one running for President who CONSISTENLY opposed the war in Iraq. If Hillary Clinton was a man, she probably would have received the nomination long ago.