You make a good point, Turkana, and I hope that people listen.

Neither of the current candidates were my first choice and so I don't have skin in this game like so many Clinton and Obama supporters that have been in those camps for months or even years, but you're absolutely right about Gore supporters (I was one of those hopefuls) who failed to actually listen to him. I hope the same does not turn out to be the case with Clinton or Obama supporters when one of them eventually pivots to supporting the other.

Turkana's point misses a point. Many Clinton supporters know (or at least think that they know) things about Obama that cause serious doubts about the job that Obama would do as President. Telling them to drop their opposition does not address thier concerns. A bad Democratic President is not better than a bad Republican President. I do not suggest that you agree with them. But I doubt that any unification can succeed without addressing their concerns. "Suck it up and get with the team" doesn't cut it.

I usually never agree with you, but you are spot on today. Meteor Blades wrote the best article I've read IN YEARS,Hillary and Obama must unite the party, and I would be fine with Hillary as VP. And for you Hillary supporters who plan on voting for McSame, please do, it sounds like it is the only thing that will satisfy your HATRED for Obama. Because in the end, isn't it all about you?

jwrjr said:
>A bad Democratic President is not better
>than a bad Republican President.

I think that's the argument I've seen from the anti-Obama camp but I think it's just terribly wrong.

A bad Democrat working *with* a Democratic congress is quite preferable to me, and most Democrats, when compared to a bad Republican working *against* a Democratic congress -- on every single policy position / Democratic platform component that Democrats support.

To argue otherwise is either the product of poor reasoning or malice.

Turkana,

When I then endorsed Chris Dodd, I knew he had no chance, but I thought he was the most deserving and qualified candidate. I also knew I would end up having to settle on someone else, and I hoped that someone else would still have a chance. That didn't happen, either

Glad we share something in common. I was originally an Edwards supporter. But I knew it was unlikely he was going to win, and I also started reading more on Dodd and really liked him (even though I knew he had no chance). When Dodd stood up and threatened a filibuster against the FISA legislation, against our own damn stupid Senate leader who was pretending to act gullible on pushing the Rockefeller/Cheney amnesty crap, my money and support went immediately towards Dodd until he dropped out.

I wasn't immediately taken by the remaining candidates either for the same reasons you mention - they were both very similar on nearly all issues. And I think Hillary, despite my disagreement with some of the things she's stated and her connections to lobbyists, the DLC, etc., would be an imminently better choice over anything that the GOP would produce, let alone the likes of McBush. And I will continue to state that I'm not opposed to her being a VP, and would fully support the decision if it were made. That ticket to me would be one that would not only beat McCain, but blow him out of the water and send the GOP reeling for years to come.

And your last paragraph was very well said.

As a Senator Clinton supporter, I have no problem voting for Senator Obama for President. Actually I do, but I can ignore the more vocal of them at the moment to vote for Senator Obama. (N.B., Repeating anti-Clinton talking points from the 90's only convinces me that you're from RedState.)

What I find amusing are the commenters that used to loudly proclaim that they would rather vote for Senator McCain than Senator Clinton. Now they are ones pushing the 'Get on the train' and the 'Senator Clinton has to unify the party behind Senator Obama' memes. I guess the Unity Pony only goes one-way.

This diary is a must read:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/1/72643/08080/210/526590

Note:

Judge Richard A. Lazzara agreed with the DNC, which said that it its practices are not discriminatory and political parties have a constitutional right to determine how delegates are selected in their nominating process.

And like I said, if I were a Hillary supporter, I would have been embarrassed by Ickes yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39COrJsujUo&e

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PewIXrzzazo&feature=related

His hypocritical ass was handed to him on a plate a couple of times yesterday. What a twit.

Dang, posted my previous post in the wrong comments section. Sorry.

I was not going to be completely pleased with our nominee, no matter who it turned out to be. My candidate didn't run. When I then endorsed Chris Dodd, I knew he had no chance, but I thought he was the most deserving and qualified candidate. I also knew I would end up having to settle on someone else, and I hoped that someone else would still have a chance. That didn't happen, either. So, when the race came down to Clinton vs. Obama, I knew I wouldn't be thrilled with the result, and I saw little substantive difference between the candidates on policy.

I agree 1000% (and NO! I don't mean like McGovern!)

This totally expresses my feelings exactly. I liked Dodd, but when he dropped out I switched to Edwards and when he tanked I supported Obama. I don't see a huge difference between these candidates, except that I was moved by Obama's race speech which was very powerful.

The media has behaved shamelessly towards Hillary, but Obama is not the media. Some of his supporters have been totally over the top calling Hillary "delusional" "twisted" "insane" etc.

He's not his most rabid supporters either, any more than Hillary was responsible for the shieking women at the hearing yesterday who chanted "McCain '08!" They only embarrassed Hillary.

From my perspective I don't see that the media has ever favored EITHER Hillary or Obama. They were savaging Hillary when it looked in January like she would be the nominee, then they switched to brutalizing Obama (Rev. Wright, "bittergate", etc.) when the momentum shifted again to him; then when Hillary started making a comeback in Ohio and Pennsylvania they switched back again to calling for her to step down.

Meanwhile they've given McCain a total pass on being an idiot who can't tell whether the Iranians are Sunnis or Shiites without Joe Lieberman whispering hin his ear. He's "a hero" and a "straight shooter" no matter how many lies he tells or how delusional he is.

Watch now that Obama's the nominee the media drag up another "scandal" about him. It's nothing personal. They just are corporate whores owned by multi-billion dollar media conglomerates that favor Republicans.

Turk,

There are a lot of Dems who defended Bill Clinton from the vast right-wing conspiracy not because they thought he was a great President with great policies and great legislative accomplishments. I saw his trade policies were as Republican as GHW Bush's and I could see that damage that such trade policies would do (and did do). I didn't like his destruction of welfare or his increased drug war. I think the reason a lot of us supported Bill Clinton against impeachment is because we didn't think it was fair to push a President out of office because he lied about a bj.

I never gave much thought to Hillary until she first ran for the Senate. She's too far to the right for a Senator from New York. I never thought that I'd live to see the day when a candidate for the Democratic Party would REPEATEDLY praise the Republican nominee in the process of bad-mouthing the candidate who's beating her. In short, H. Clinton has shown much more loyalty to class than to party. If you've got a problem with Donna Brazile then you should've been doing some serious Hillary-hating by now. But you're not.

Michigan and Florida were messes, and they weren't messes because of Obama or because the Party didn't have the right to stop states from fighting to be in front of everyone else. They were messes because the two state parties violated the rules and because Clinton played the situation to her advantage. You may not like Brazile, but she's shown more loyalty to the Party that Hillary ever has. And Turk, showing loyalty to Hillary ain't the same as Party loyalty. You've been gamed too.

Get over it and get back to business. Stop your sobbing.

Well, just when a plea for civility and thoughtfulness goes out you can be sure Bob in Pacifica with his typically winning ways will step in a stomp it to death with well thought out shrieks of "stop your sobbing" and "get back to business." Bob, you do as much harm to party unity as the woman alluded to with the McCain 08 sign at the DNC meeting. Really, you are embarassing all of us. Turkana, I linked this excellent post over at IIRTZ and I want to compliment you on it.

aimai

I am not, nor ever have been, a "Clinton supporter." However, as the primaries progressed and the guy I wanted to run, didn't. And the guy I settled on couldn't get five minutes of time as the media sucked Clinton's and Obama's collective asses and started driving the "Historical Moment" meme and washed out that left me to float about, looking for a new candidate.

And, despite being a former Republican fully "briefed" on the evil mendacity of Hillary Clinton, I found her to actually be a solid candidate. And I found Obama to be a spineless wimp who will not protect the rights of my wife or our daughters. So, when it comes to November, I'm not playing your, or anyone else's "support the Democrats" game. You want me to vote for your candidate, they better be qualified. They better have shown they are willing to protect those I care about more than life itself. And Obama isn't "that guy," lacking both a spine and convictions. This is what I see:

Really, you quit your church? So the pastor said a few crazy things. They all do. You could have made it a joke. "Yeah, Pastor Wright's a pretty good pastor, but sometimes he gets on the crazy bus and makes mistakes."

Really, you rolled over to the NRA and voted present?

Really, you let the nuclear power industry (corporate roll-over) off the hook for their failures?

Really, you voted present on matters of reproductive CHOICE?

Really, at most every opportunity to vote against the war by defunding it, you funded it? Even though you SAID you were going to NOT FUND THE WAR when you ran for Senate (and I fucking gave you money)!!!

Fucking please, you're like the Denver Broncos (pre Terrell Davis) in the Superbowl. Going a pathetic 0-5 when and where it counts with me. Not once standing up for a serious issue in which I believe.

My position is, despite partisan morons like Joe, that I owe my vote to the country, and selecting the slightly less odious pile-of-shit candidate isn't the way I'm going to chose to exercise my vote. In fact, in my book, voting for the "least bad" is a cop-out and a disservice. I owe my vote to the candidate that best supports and endorses what I believe in and has, when the opportunity has come to advance those issues, done so. And that person isn't coming from the two "main" parties.

I'm certainly not amenable to some idiot Obama supporters try to scare me with McCain. What is this, 2004 and "Orange alert" time? Give me a break, that may scare the weak, but it doesn't scare me. Nor the silly "you're a racist if you don't" line of reasoning as they try to guilt me into voting for Obama.

Anyway, I'm not voting for Oboma because he's black, or I'm a bitter Clinton partisan. I'm not voting for him because he's weak, spineless and lacks convictions. He does not support any "conservative" values I have. He does not support the "liberal" values I have.

And until someone can show me that he does ACTUALLY support these values IN PRACTICE AND ACTION, Obama can fuck off.

Or, as NOW said:

Bonnie Grabenhofer, IL NOW State President: Much has been printed in both the mainstream and alternative media and many have watched videos of Lorna Brett’s comments on important votes that occurred while Barack Obama was serving in the Illinois State Senate. Ms. Brett continues to present herself as the President of Chicago when IL State Senator Barack Obama was making decisions on votes that were critical for women and girls in Illinois. As the current Illinois NOW State President, it is essential that I clarify for the record that Ms. Brett’s assertions are not correct. Lorna Brett was president of Chicago NOW from 1996-1998. She was not, as she represents, the president of Chicago NOW at the time IL NOW activists were meeting and talking with legislators about the abortion bills in the early 2000s. Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. Our records indicate that Ms. Brett has not been a member of NOW since 1999. Ms. Brett with not involved with either Chicago NOW or IL NOW when we were fighting to stop these bills. Ms. Brett is misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills and as a platform for her personal criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton.

To be clear, voting “present” on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting “present” does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman’s right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama’s record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.

Ms. Brett and the Planned Parenthood lobbyist Pam Sutherland assert that the strategy to vote “present” was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted “no” with little negative consequence in his district.

So, at no cost to himself he could have struck a blow I could respect. And he ran away. Neville Chamberlain that he is. Only instead of giving away Checkoslovakia, he's giving away my daughter's rights.

Anyway, I'm not a Clinton supporter. I haven't given her a dime. Nor will I.

She got my vote in the primary because, despite her failings, she did manage to earn my vote. Come November, I'm looking at the Green's for a Presidential candidate that supports what deem appropriate because I 100% doubt the Democrats would give her the nomination.

So, you Obamabots can keep putting it down to racism or bitterness. But it's neither. It's competence and the complete lack of spine Obama has demonstrated. Every-time the going gets rough, Obama retreats. And Hillary, like her or not, she's a fighter. And I can respect that. Even if I don't like her.

thanks, aimai. glad someone else said it...

I realize that many of you Obama supporters are incapable of nuance,...

I won't rail against the Obama hardcore, because my feelings about them are well-known.

I also won't rail against the Clinton hardcore, because they are justifiably nursing some serious wounds.

Ahhh. You got your itty-bitty feelings hurt because the big mean Obama-rama-boterific-pomeranians didn't agree with the crap you were spewing. Isn't that special! From the beginning you've written the bulk of your screeds as "Obama attack specials" and you discovered you have no influence on the process. None. That's gotta hurt.

One of my favorites from your early past:

The anti-Hillary crowd has coalesced around the man deemed most likely to be able to stop her. From the start of your screeds no one could support Obama unless they were completely anti-Hillary. No preference for a candidate was allowed in your irrelevant little political brain.

Too bad the internet tubes saved all of your crap. Your "new" clothes have a definite skin tone to them.

what a vile, dishonest little piece of excrement you are, phid.

You learn something new every day, I didn't know Chamberlain "owned" Checkoslovakia.

My point, and aimai's, are much in agreement. I'm not trying to tell anyone who to vote for. I'm just saying that if you want Clinton supporters to vote for Obama, you will have to do better than "stop your sobbing" or "get back to business". If the Clinton supporters think that McCain will be less bad for the country than Obama, they will vote for McCain. Address that if you want their votes.

My first choice was Edwards and Hillary was my choice after I looked into the background of both candidates left after Edwards left. Hillary was a default candidate for me too Turkana. I never thought myself as "hardcore Clinton supporter", though I believed to be hardcore Democrat. I will not vote for Obama and I will vote for McCain. There is nothing Obama can say to change his 20 years with people that represent the most vile of the racial divide. McCain is a better candidate than Obama. I've changed from ANY Democrat back in February to NO WAY Obama gets my vote, to I want McCain because he is a better candidate. His response to the Phleger attack won me over. He has more class than Obama and all the leaders in the Democratic Party. I'm not a Democrat any more.

"If you think she's a leader, prove it. Follow her lead."

...OK, but if this mother of all primary nightmares finally causes her to jump off a bridge, can I wear a life vest?

tiki,

she'll be wearing a bungee cord. after the boredom of the past year, she needs some excitement!

Turkana,

I will not start off by calling you a name such as, incompetent, biased, and incompetently biased. I will only assume that you are hurt and disappointed about the outcome of the primary. In my opinion, both Clinton and Obama must pull the party together. I dont want Obama to pick Clinton for a running mate but if that is the only way to pull democrats together, so be it. With that said, I hope that we can put the buised feelings of the primary behind us and move on.

Turkana, I think you miss the larger point. The DNC is clearly in the pocket of Obama and has been for quite some time. The Democratic nominating process is a sham. The rules committee seems to be worthless. The Democratic leadership, including Pelosi and Reid, are basically spineless.

If Clinton is not the nominee I am writing in Clinton anyway. This is not sour grapes that my preferred candidate didn't win. For the longest time I didn't have a preferred candidate. I was a loyal Democrat, willing to vote for whomever was the eventual nominee.

This is the only way that I can see to send a clear message to the DNC that their leadship is seriously lacking. What were they thinking with Michigan and Florida? That just seemed tailor made to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

My concession to the Democratic party is that I will not vote for McCain. Although I think America and the Democratic party will be better off in the long run if McCain wins, despite the risks of having a Republican in office for 4 more years. I now think that 4 years of Obama will be Jimmy Carter all over again (and I liked Jimmy Carter although at the time of his election I was only about 10). What followed Carter? Almost 20 years of Republican damage.

Nope, count me out, even if Clinton endorses Obama. I am not voting for a candidate, I am voting for Democratic principles.

angryman,

i'm not at all hurt, although i am disappointed. and disgusted by people like brazile and the online obamabots.

McCain = Obama

Obama = McCain

Turk,

We have battled during this process and have exchanged not-so-nice words. Please dont take it personal. No gloating here, just quiet reflection. Its just politics.

Sorry, Turkana, but no sale. Obama and the DNC crossed a line with me. I can't vote for the man. I may not vote at all. I didn't start out a Clinton supporter. I was for Edwards, second choice Dodd. But after witnessing the sleazy campaign against Clinton by Obama, the MSM, and many left wing blogs I've dropped my membership in the Democratic Party.

I've voted Democratic in every election and primary since 1972. I've given them thousands of dollars. But this year, no way. The Dems are going to have to do some major house cleaning before they get me, and millions of others, back.

My comments were going to be quite similar to SeaMBA, so I won't rehash them. Three months ago I was indifferent between Obama and Clinton. In that time, the treatment of the two candidates by the MSM and most of the blogosphere made me angrier and angrier (although it's saved me a lot of time as the list of shows and blogs that I wouldn't look at has grown so long). Yesterday's politburo show was the last straw. I won't vote for Obama because of the last 3 months, regardless of what Clinton says.

No.

Go figure. Early on Obama was my first choice. Then one shoe, then ten shoes dropped and it was over. Now there is no way I could ethically vote for him, but I have no choice. Obama politics is not about ethics or moral righteousness or even truth. Hillary Clinton won my vote, and respect. I could have voted for Biden or Dodd as well. My hopes for some actual improvement in the crippling trajectory downwards that this country is experiencing rests with Clinton. Blaming The MDC for their attempt to break the stranglehold of Iowa and NH over the primary process is self-serving spin. Saying Clinton supporters are just reacting to a bad primary system is ridiculous, as Jeffrey Toobin on CNN just deemed the votes of Puerto Ricans. The fix was in, obviously. What are these corporate shills even going to discuss now? No one will even be interested in listening. Kind of like my interest in hearing any more excuses, evasions or accomodations that Obama might offer in the future. Oh, just heard another shoe drop.

I didn't read all the comments, so sorry if this was already explained, but how could they take 4 delegates away from Hillary in MI?? They tried to allocate the delegates based on exit polls? How about based on the actual vote?? It's bad enough that they're giving Obama all the uncommitted votes, even though some surely went to Edwards, Biden, and Richardson. But to take 4 more from Hillary and give them to Obama? Where did they come up with that? The Washington Post article I read today really didn't explain it. Can someone fill me in?

Moses, you sound like a gop troll. nice try with your highbrow nonsense. go back to redstate where you belong.

love the gop trolls who won't sign their names. their just trying to sow discord in the Democratic Party. omg Obama is the devil, the anti-christ, John "lets kill americans and Iraqis for 100 years is SO MUCH BETTER. YES ANOTHER BUSH TERM YAY

Hi CG...
How are things?

Where is Coyote?

cg,

i wrote about that yesterday. they could do it because the rules committee can make a backroom deal to change the rules in the middle of the game. which is what they did.

I've heard this "misogynist" charge against Obama over and over and over from Clinton supporters, but rarely with any specific examples. Can someone please explain to me the basis for it? What, specifically, has he said or done that was misogynistic?

I know of no instances in which Obama has treated Clinton as anything but a respected equal during the campaign.

I've never been a follower, nor has it ever really been about Clinton for me, so that approach doesn't hold much water for me. My vote is mine, and if the party doesn't earn it, it doesn't get it. So far, Obama hasn't earned it, and he and his campaign have actually put him in a position to lose it. Going forward, the only rationalization left for me is that what's at stake is so much bigger than just him. Which is fine, but it's a pretty big come-down after all the optimism of the early primaries. At this point I'm less inclined to defend Obama and more interested in holding his feet to the fire to keep him honest.

"they could do it because the rules committee can make a backroom deal to change the rules in the middle of the game."

The only result that would NOT have changed the rules in the middle of the game would have been for Clinton to get zero delegetes out of Michigan. Is that what you wanted, Turkana?

#1: Gore was incredibly experienced and competent.

#2: Obama is not. That is the problem with your argument.

#3: I am going to vote for a competent person to be president. Obama is going to have to get me to change my mind. Lotsa luck with that.

I won't rail against the Obama hardcore, because my feelings about them are well-known. I also won't rail against the Clinton hardcore, because they are justifiably nursing some serious wounds.

So as usual with Turkana, the "Obama hardcore" is beyond the pale of rational discourse, but whatever the "Clinton hardcore" has to say must be taken seriously owing to their "serious wounds".

Fair and Balanced.

Early on Obama was my first choice. Then one shoe, then ten shoes dropped and it was over. Now there is no way I could ethically vote for him, but I have no choice. Obama politics is not about ethics or moral righteousness or even truth. Hillary Clinton won my vote, and respect.

I started out a Richardson supporter. After Super Tuesday it was clear I had to choose between Clinton and Obama. I started out leaning towards Clinton. Then I switched. Obama "won my vote, my respect." I saw shoes being dropped by Hillary Clinton. Look folks, we can legitimately draw different conclusions, place emphasis on different events, and so on. This doesn't make any of us blind, evil, or deluded. It doesn't make the Clinton supporter a "Clintonista". It doesn't make the Obama supporter an "Obamabot".

wrong as usual, naomi. she could have gotten 50%.

Turkana, I haven't seen the rationale for it. I understand (but don't agree with) the rationale for giving Obama ALL the uncommitted delegates. But what was the explanation for giving Obama 4 of Clinton's delegates--giving him votes that actually in real life went to her?

"wrong as usual, naomi. she could have gotten 50%."

Not without changing the rules in the middle of the game.

In any event, as you just conceded, she did better by having the rules changed in the middle of the game than if they had been left unchanged.

So what are you complaining about?

wrong again, naomi. the 50% penalty actually was on the rules, but using the penalties that actually were on the rules would have left the uncommitteds uncommitted. but please do keep trying.

I've heard this "misogynist" charge against Obama over and over and over from Clinton supporters, but rarely with any specific examples. Can someone please explain to me the basis for it? What, specifically, has he said or done that was misogynistic?

The two that come to mind are:
1. Saying that when she's feeling down (moody woman?)"the claws come out." (She's a catty bitch.)

2. Not specific to Clinton, but pissed me off more: calling a reporter "sweetie."

I also noticed during several debates that he would pull her chair out for her. Just being a gentleman I guess, but really not appropriate in that setting. Would he do the same for a female boss at a law office?

"wrong again, naomi. the 50% penalty actually was on the rules, but using the penalties that actually were on the rules would have left the uncommitteds uncommitted."

Well no, Michigan had been stripped of all its delegates. Unless the Rules Committee chose to come to a radically different determination "in the middle of the game", Michigan would have remained with no delegates, and Hillary would have gotten nothing from the state.

Clinton got virtually the best deal possible, and she got what she got only because the Obama camp largely conceded the fight in the interest of party unity. But you already know that, you're just dissembling now.

If I vote for Obama, it's not going to be because "Meteor Blades" shames me into it. The guy might want to just pipe down. He's not the boss of me.

CG said,

"The two that come to mind are:

1. Saying that when she's feeling down (moody woman?)"the claws come out." (She's a catty bitch.)"

I googled it and the direct quote was "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out." There was no reference to Clinton. I don't see how one can say that's sexist. "Claws" have been used as a political metaphor long before women became important political players.

"2. Not specific to Clinton, but pissed me off more: calling a reporter "sweetie."

That seemed to be prompted by the reporter following him around for an hour. Still, a bit odd for a man of his generation to say, I agree, but on a scale of 1 to 10 of sexist behavior, I'd give it a 2 or 3.

"I also noticed during several debates that he would pull her chair out for her. Just being a gentleman I guess, but really not appropriate in that setting. Would he do the same for a female boss at a law office?"

I totally disagree. Men that are my peers routinely hold doors for me and occasionally pull out a chair for me. I've always taken it as a sign of respect for women, not something that is intended to demean.

All in all, if that's all there is, it's not much.

I'm shocked!

SHOCKED!

to see a bunch of racist gop'ers
on
a
DEM website!

but then, never mind me, I ventured in from non crazy feminist sites to check up on the mildest of the crazy ones.

Turkana, at some point, you just might have to accept that the flock of birds you're flying with? A bunch of *highly* self-entitled shitbirds.

The rest of you? *oh my but this is amusing...*
This country will be majority minority soon enough, and if it's still a republican style government with most people still able to vote...
well...
Obama's not going to be the last colored dude.
And the tradition of making all black (and really all minorities) leaders who are proud of who they are, "small leaders" who are grubby, will also fade, as the costs of that attitude goes up.

And those whitebread feminists who desire an equal share in white privilege? They'll have to make it up to *everyone* for this little travesty of a primary, since Gloria Steinem.

And please, please, please, don't conflate media sexism with Obama sexism. Not that any of you will listen...

once again, naomi, you prove you have no idea what you're talking about. the rule was for 50%, and that was later doubled- rules changed in the middle of the game. and that you can claim clinton benefited from losing four delegates that had actually been voted for her and were reassigned to obama is just ludicrous.

shah,

you want to point out where someone in the comments got racist? thanks.

I googled it and the direct quote was "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out." There was no reference to Clinton.

There was a separate quote then when he said something about "when she's feeling down" she goes on the attack. He actually said "periodically when she's feeling down" which caused some to rant that he was talking about her period (which I'm sure she doesn't get anymore), but I thought that was a bit of a stretch.

I think holding a door or pulling out a chair is a sign of respect in a way, but not in the way of an equal. I have no problem with men holding doors for me. Of course, I hold doors for other people regardless of who they are. But anyway, if an equal co-worker in my workplace pulled out a chair for me, I would find that a bit odd.

And I disagree that "claws" has been used to describe men in the past.

Nah, I'm not going to point them out for you.

Given the usual emphasis on labels rather than actions/motivations that white people tend to have on racism, it would be a waste of time.

I mean, all you have to do is to deny everything up to the image of a slavemaster raping his favorite concubine before saying "...maybe that's racist...", and you can enjoy some of that spiffy white privilege in having other white people's opinion back you up and mattering more than anyone else's opinion. Just like, inch, by inch by inch, Obama has to disavow being black, while Clinton does not have to answer for Ferraro's blatant racism, which was more severe than anything a couple of preachers have said...

In the end, I don't have to come here, nor do I have to comment, and you are free to use that Obama's evil sword and pox on both houses shield to your heart's content. I mostly liked typing out my disdain for feminists who want a better share of white privilege.

I did used to like this website, and I'm hoping that sanity will eventually return. However, I won't forget the episode.

as i expected, shah- make a blanket accusation of racism, and don't even provide any examples. classy.

Gosh, wow, thanks, I needed you to do my thinking for me.

Could you be any more patronizing?

gosh, if you need me to, i can try.

Meteor Blades can kiss my ass. Him and his craven silence and tolerance for the horrifying misogyny at DKos aimed at Clinton, the constant racebaiting over there, and now he wants to lecture people about who to vote for? Screw him and the horse he rode in on.

Just look at the Obama commenters here - disgusting as usual. I'm with Moses. I can't vote to reward this freak movement.

reality,

meteor blades has fought back against much of the asininity at daily kos. when i was still posting there, he often rec'd my diaries and comments, and he rec'd diaries and comments that criticized kos's despicable "blacker" posts. today's post, however, proved that the atmosphere there has become so toxic that even one of the site's few remaining adults has been infected. i hope that on further relfection he'll realize how off-key that post was.

Turkana,

I apologize for being so angry. You are a study in calm rationality.

I myself have gone off the deep end as you can see.

I think Im going to vote for Bob Barr.

Its a way to hurt the Republican party and vote against McCain without having to vote for Obama.

Turkana writes: "what a vile, dishonest little piece of excrement you are, phid."

This after you praise amal (or whatever) for atacking me for not being nice to Clinton.

I guess we'll have to reschedule the kumbaya moment.

+++

You were gamed by Clinton. She is a reactionary Republican in Democrat's clothing. Her husband hangs out with the the miserable SOB that's driving our country into the ground. So it goes.

I've asked several times why Clinton praised McCain in calling Obama incompetent. Is that your kind of Democrat, Turk? I've been on this planet almost sixty years. I can't recall this ever happening before. This is treason to the Democratic Party. What the hell is the difference between Hillary Clinton and Rush Limbaugh, or Scaife now?

A vote for Obama is a vote for acceptance of; the media, the vile progressive blogs, the fixing of an election by the DNC, the verbal abuse of women and
the destruction of the Democratic Party.

"hardcore Clinton supporter" has little to do with it. It has now become personal and I will not compromise just to get get a Democrat in the White House. Hear this. There is no unity except among those who continue to preach about it. It will not happen in this election. Never.

Two people I'll never vote for: McInane and obama. And for the obama jerkoffs who called me "racist and woman hater" based on nothing, I'll not vote for them with you in mind. And of course, Dean, Pelosi and Reid be also in mind. And when obama loses (assuming the supers can be so stupid to actually annoint obama), I'll remind Dean, Pelosi and Reid daily they are the ones responsible for Democrats losing in November. So rave on obama turds, Barry has a long way to go.

I hear you. But guess what? I'm not a sheep. I think for myself, and I make my own decisions. And one sure-fired way to ensure that I don't vote for Barack Obama is to lay some patronizing guilt trip on me -- not that I'm any longer inclined to vote for him, anyway. Saturday was acovenant-breaker for me. The Democratic Party stands for nothing, if only for expediency and not for principle. And on Saturday, the party elders stood publicly with their feet planted firmly in midair.

Bob in Pacifica, you are a loudmouthed buffoon who's proven yourself part of the problem here. If you truly think the term "treason" applies to people who decline to support your preferred candidate, then you are one very sick puppy.

Turk, I went over and read MB's post, and these days I'd go over to that place only for him, or McJoan.

Not one of his better efforts.

It's all very sad. My life-long Democratic parents, by the way, have informed me they are voting McCain. Can't change their minds. Among other things, it seems they don't appreciate being painted as ignorant racists by the media and Obama's surrogates.

If there could be a contest for the poster child for the clueless, hate-filled Obama movement, and for the correlated phenomenon of Obama's demise, I think Bob in Pacifica might win.

But, then again, there are a lot of other close contenders around here.

Will I be happy if the democrats lose the election? Not really, no, I've been a liberal all my life, and I dislike McCain. But will one good thing be that the vile Obama movement gets its comeuppance? Oh yeah.

Gotta love one biased Hillary blog citing another biased Hillary blog as supporting evidence for yet another biased pro-Hillary blog entry!

And it is funny to see Turkana lecture folks about "tone."

(Not the Joe further up in this thread)

Well they failed to fully recognize the votes counted and verified by the states MI/FL, and the re-writing of the votes in MI was just completely insane.

I thought this would feel kind of lousy, today starts *my* first day as an independent.

...but it feels great!

It IS liberating to be unaffiliated, isn't it Joe?

All these people wielding cudgels and spouting "you're not a real democrat", "vote for the party or be gone", etc. have made me feel like I'm in Orwell's 1984. THE PARTY will tell you little people what to do and how to vote.

Well, no more, huh? It's great to be an independent voter and think for yourself.

hehe, You might want to try putting words in your own mouth first, before attempting it with others.

with the term independent you are confusing the noun with the adjective ;-)

"And that you can claim Clinton benefited from losing four delegates that had actually been voted for her and were reassigned to Obama is just ludicrous”."

Heh. More dissembling from Turkana. You can't lose what you never had. The Rules Committee had earlier voted to de-certify the Michigan Jan. 15 sham primary and strip Michigan of all of its delegates. Clinton started Saturday with ZERO delegates from Michigan. A compromise was then worked out whereby Clinton ended up with 10 more delegates from Michigan than Obama, even though it was based on nothing, since the only "vote" had been a event worthy of Joseph Stalin or Myanmar in which only one of the major candidates' names was on the ballot. "But she got 55% of the vote, she should at least get 55% of the delegates!" No way. You can't assume that if Obama had been on the ballot Clinton would have got 55%; you can't assume anything about that Soviet-style election. How many people walked into the voting booth and saw only one name on the ballot that they had ever hear of? Who the hell votes for "Uncommitted"? Many probably thought they would be throwing their vote away by doing so.

Bottom line, Clinton didn't "lose" 4 delegates on Saturday, she gained 69 and was damn lucky to get those.

Everyone should do what they honestly think is best. If you can't in good conscience vote for Obama don't do so. No on should feel compelled to vote for someone they don't want as their leader.

Naomi above is just amusingly wrong. The original action was unjust; the awarding of delegates to Obama was outside the committee's rule-allowed power; giving him some of the delegates representing HRC voters was what was reminiscent of the bogeyman regimes she cites.

I admire Hillary enormously, but I am not an acolyte. I decide whom I want to be President.

At this point, I cannot see myself voting for McCain, but I know I will NOT vote for Obama. There is nothing he can do or say to gain my vote.

I have followed the campaigns. I've listened and read. IMO, Obama is simply not qualified to be President. And I do not want another uninterested, disinterested President. In addition, the more I've watched and listened to Obama, the less I have liked him as a person. And the religious fanaticism of his supporters, including the media, scare me beyond belief. We do not need another President who will be given a pass because the Media adore him.

In short, Obama is not Gore, not by a long shot.

You assume Hillary supporters are just angry and will or should get over it. Some will. But others won't because, as earlier commenters here have pointed out, many of us oppose Obama on substantive grounds. McCain will be bad for liberals, but I think he will be better for the country than Obama - and country trumps party.

In short, it will be another choice between two evils, and I see no way that Obama can convince me he would be less bad than McCain. At best, I won't vote for a Presidential candidate. At worst, I'll pull the lever for McCain, my first Rep. vote ever. That's how strongly I feel that Obama would be a disaster as a President.

(Oh, and for you Obamanuts who insist that Hillary isn't qualified either to be President, we are here discussing a choice between Obama and McCain and if you honestly believe that Obama is more qualified than McCain, then you live in an alternate universe beyond the reach of reason.)

If the option is McCain or Obama, then there is no viable candidate to vote for.

It will be interesting, nonetheless to see how this might play out, weather a REP in a post bush era wins over a DEM that has alienated themselves from a shoe-in base.

Could be the biggest cock up of all times.

"Naomi above is just amusingly wrong. The original action was unjust; the awarding of delegates to Obama was outside the committee's rule-allowed power; giving him some of the delegates representing HRC voters was what was reminiscent of the bogeyman regimes she cites."

Okay rilkefan, so I guess you're saying that if the situation were reversed and Hillary had taken her name off the ballot in Michigan, and Obama screwed up and inadvertently left his name on the ballot, and just for fun let's say that there is no "Uncommitted" choice for the voters, with the result that Obama, running against himself, ends up getting 90% of the recorded vote.

Under that scenario, do you think Obama deserves to get 90% of Michigan's delegates?