Jblack asks another stupid question, that reveals so much.

“..Exactly what did you repeatedly write about Hagee’s connection to McCain?”

REPEATEDLY? Show us where I REPEATEDLY wrote about Hagee’s connection to McCain? I just re-read my own post, and found ONE mention of it, in a typically long post, since I feel compelled to provide examples for those who have so much trouble connecting the dots of the most simple concepts.

So here’s some old age wisdom for you JBlack…

‘Tis better to remain silent and be ‘thought’ a fool, than to open ones mouth and PROVE it.

Now go make your yard signs for McSame. There should be some paint-by-numbers kits at your local Wal-Mart.

Below several people seemed as usual to miss he point of what I was saying in my last post.  Seeing the hate spewed by some of the Hillary folks, sponsors nothing but division, between people. 

Now that this article has become long of tooth, it is old news, but the hate still surges from the Hillary camp.  I know they are upset they lost, and should be normal.  What I cannot seem to comprehend, is the acceptance of such divisive tactics to enhance her campaign, and the wonder why they lost?

If running her campaign is any indication of how she would handle the big job as president, I am glad she lost.

Actually Marnie,

The Repug hate machine against Hillary began IMMEDIATELY in their (Billary’s) first term. (even as they were running the first time around). I very clearly remember the bumper stickers that appeared in my repug controlled neighborhood, demanding “IMPEACH BILLARY”. So no, they did not like HER, and most of it (at least at the time) seemed clearly politically motivated. However, it did not stop Bill Clinton from gaining yet another term in office, (I voted for him twice) and that’s why I’m tired of having the women of the year 2008, CLAIMING these so-called attacks on HILLARY, for THEMSELVES!

In other words, the way Hillary -ONE WOMAN- was treated or not, has been to ‘demean’ ALL women. This is bullshit!

Let Hillary take her own lumps, for her own actions or conduct, from those who would choose to criticize her..LEGITIMATELY OR NOT!

These criticisms to NOT extend to ‘ALL WOMEN’ and if you choose to claim them, you do that as a conscious choice and an INDIVIDUAL woman. Don’t attempt to claim these atrocities for the rest of us, because as a woman, I am viewed and treated (in this country) based on MY OWN ACTIONS and behavior, NOT Hillary’s, or yours, or anybody else’s!!

And stop blaming the media for Christ’s sake! Do you allow the media to define who YOU are?

The problem with your connection here JBlack, is that I never found anything at all ‘racist’ about Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. They simply were NOT racist. They were SERMONS. It was the outrageous outcry to them that was prompted by the RACISM of the ‘outcryers’! Because, as we’ve learned, there has been no such ‘outcry’ from anyone regarding the horrific things that have come from the mouths of Hagee and Palsey, both of whom spew hatred and bigotry through the airwaves from their pulpits. Both of whom have been embraced and courted by McSame.

So that’s the first point, and probably the most important one.

The other point is that the associations that were hyped up regarding Wrights sermons were to suggest (as you have here - again) that the sermons were coming from Obama’s mouth, and not Jeremiah Wright’s mouth.

Here again, you speak of a ‘20 year ASSOCIATION’ between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright, which most people familiar with the relationship between a pastor and his/her congregation would immediately recognize as BULLSHIT!

Example..my late grandmother attended the SAME Catholic Church nearly every day of her life, for over 60 years. During the course of that time, there had to be a MINIMUM of 20 Priests assigned to that small parish. Some were there for several years, and others were there for shorter periods of time. To suggest that she then had an ‘association’ with any one of them, (even though as a parishioner she obviously DID have SOME sort of an ‘association), or to suggest that by her very presence in the congregation, she was automatically responsible for everything that came out of all of their mouths, is ludicrous. And of course since neither my grandmother or anyone else in that Congregation was running for office, NOBODY WOULD!

Now my own comment here about Crazy Harriet, is perfectly clear, and is NOT the same thing at all. I didn’t claim that she was ‘associated’ with Hillary Clinton. I said exactly what I said, and what you re-posted. Crazy Harriet ‘represents’ and is an EXAMPLE of not only many of Hillary’s zealot supporters, but of Hillary herself; AT LEAST IN THE BEHAVIOR THAT SHE HAS DISPLAYED IN HER CAMPAIGN TO DATE!

That’s how simple that is. To suggest that I’m making the same sort of an ‘association’ that you claim between Obama and Wright is just the typical twisted chicanery and malfeasance that has come to dominate the hysterical rhetoric from the racists among you.

As for the irony, how ironic is it that the words ‘God Damn America”, as uttered by Jeremiah Wright and taken completely out of context with WHY he was making such a statement, were the words that had every racist raging in the streets, and ready to lynch Obama, and Crazy Harriet here says ‘God Damn the Democrats’ (are they not “American”?) and nobody has even MENTIONED that, let alone try to hold Hillary responsible for it.

So, wise up JBlack. You’re not at all unusual, and it doesn’t take a genius to see through your BS. Nobody (including me) has suggested some ‘association’ between Hillary and Crazy Harriet. What I DID say, was that Crazy Harriet’s BEHAVIOR here, and the MENTALITY that she displays, is nearly IDENTICAL to what we’ve been witnessing from Hillary ‘supporters’ as well as Hillary herself, for over 6 months. The underlying racism, (whether Hillary herself maintains the same) cannot be denied. More importantly, Hillary has been well aware of this mentality, (including the fundamental racism at the core of it) and has intentionally stirred it up, which is exactly the same thing that she did by making the Wright sermons an issue. And that’s exactly what she did by trying to make Louis Farrakhan an issue…all to ‘connect’ to Obama, despite the fact that there IS no ‘connection.

Nice, conciliatory note.

Like you, I don’t like the influence of big money - especially corporate money - in politic. Unlike you, however, I don’t think Obama is above the fray. The use of email and the internet employed by his campaign, perfecting what Dean did in 2004, was brilliant. It enabled him to raise a lot of money from small donors. Hillary missed the boat on that one. But Obama’s got lots of ties with Wall Street and K Street; don’t kid yourself. I just hope that he does litle more than throw them a little bone now and then, but otherwise keeps to a fundamentally progressive agenda.

I disagree Cyrena. (What a surprise!) There are a lot more pregressive-leaning people in Hillary’s camp than you seem inclined to give her credit for. I know you haven’t the imagination to fathom how anyone could be for Clinton; they must be racists or sexists who won’t tolerate Obama. That’s nonsense, and I hope you’re smart enough to know that. Back in the day, she was considered wildly liberal (remember “It takes avillage to raise a child”?), and there are still a lot of people who think of her as very progressive - though pragmatic and political enough to triangulate if it will get her elected so she can actually DO some progressive things.

The HuffPos and Daily Kos’s of the world are unabashedly Obama supporters because they represent Obama’s core constituency: younger, college-educated, left-of-left. You get outside of this blogosphere, and you discover a much more even playing field. It’s just that this more Hillary-friendly demographic doesn’t have a comparable voice.

Leefeller, I just now able to even more appreciate this post from you, having witnessed the ‘supporter’ that you were referencing.

Truthdig provided a clip of Crazy Harriet. I wish I could say that those like her were far and few between. But, I ran into another one almost exactly like her, right here in my own small community. SHe was sprouting the same stuff, complaining about having to be shoved to the back of the bus, (although she was sitting at the front of it) and bad mouthing the staff at the main transit center where SHE was headed, (I exited long before that) and ranting on the fact that they were HISPANIC, (which is probably true..there are a lot of people around here who either ARE Hispanic, or ‘appear’ to be, because the place is built on Native American land..most of California is). In our case, there are still active tribes here.

Anyway, this was another crazy old white woman, just off the bus from across the border - the border with ARIZONA!! At some point, they will move ‘beyond’ the point of being able to create all of this disruption with their old ass prejuidices. Until then, we just have to see them for what they are, and the kind ones among us will continue to walk AROUND them to keep moving, while the less patient will simply knock their asses over.

Fortunately, Obama and his campaign have been among the more patient, so they are willing to restrain themselves, and hold the retorts. But, that doesn’t mean that we’re gonna stop progress because of them.

Besides, sometimes it’s fun to watch these old biddies show out and stamp their feet when they don’t get their way. They make excellent representatives for Hillary, since she does the same.

Imagine Crazy Harriet in the White House. OK, that’s what you’ll have with Hillary.

Obama should have hired her as an example of why we should all vote for him.

I disagree Cyrena. (What a surprise!) There are a lot more pregressive-leaning people in Hillary’s camp than you seem inclined to give her credit for. I know you haven’t the imagination to fathom how anyone could be for Clinton; they must be racists or sexists who won’t tolerate Obama. That’s nonsense, and I hope you’re smart enough to know that. Back in the day, she was considered wildly liberal (remember “It takes avillage to raise a child”?), nnd there are still a lot of people who think of her as very progressive - though pragmatic and political enough to triangulate if it will get her elected so she can actually DO some progressive things.

The HuffPos and Daily Kos’s of the world are unabashedly Obama supporters because they represent Obama’s core constituency: younger, college-educated, left-of-left. You get outside of this blogosphere, and you discover a much more even playing field. It’s just that this more Hillary-friendly demographic doesn’t have a comparable voice.

I wouldn’t worry about the “big girl” comment, the “a viable female candidate who didn’t get there by being married to a president” is more than enough to get you the “sexist” label. Of course, coming from a woman (I assume), it’s not really sexist so much as sad. Has it ever occurred to you that Bill might not have achieved his political career were it not for the political council of his wife throughout his career? Bill often said, and not in patronizing jest, that she was the smarter of the two. Has it ever occurred to you that they have always been a political partnership, and back at the beginning they decided Bill would take the lead because a man had a lot better chance of rising to the top than a woman snf Bill’s personality was more “sellable”? Of course, this is pure speculation, but it is more than conceivable. Which is enough to make statements like yours sound like raw partisanship rather than reasoned opinion.

Seeing the hate coming from a Clinton supporter at the Democratic Convention, this women was from New York and she criticized the Black Man and damned the Democratic Party.  She praised Hillary as the best candidate and predicted the black man will loose against McCain. No, it was not Hillary, it was a supporter. 

Hillary has done a great job of division, and her racial bating seems to be the residue of her legacy.

Attacks from the Clinton camp on Obama, have been really sick, divisive and very typical of what Bush has done to our nation. My feelings for her have gone down a few notches, and they were not very high before.

They talk of rock Obama being a rock star, from what I have seen some of the Clinton camp showed a blind regressive following of a nature beyond sick to comprehend.

Obama is not perfect, he is not flawless, he seems to pander, but compared to the other choices, he is way ahead in some of his ideas by my book.  Now let’s see if he follows through.

I like your analogies better Louise. I won’t bring you my car for maintenance, and I’m not so likely to fly in an airplane with you in the cockpit, (though I’d be delighted to have you as a row mate:) ) and for the love of God, we do NOT want you giving birth to any puppies, or competing in any horse races. (perish the thought!)

But, if I need something really good to read, I’ve just put the internet equivalent of an APB out on your posts!

Love it!

Tdbach

“Felicity,

First, you’ll have to find one of those sites. ‘Taint one among all the general left-leaning sites like Daily Kos, HuffPo, or TD.”

=================

I don’t think Felicity was referring to any general ‘left-leaning’ sites that are in wild support of Hillary, because ‘left-leaning’ sites are NOT. (which is why you don’t find them here or Daily Kos, though there are a few at Huffpo)

No, you’d have to go to the conservative/republican/red state sites to find the Hillary supporters. There is the occassional angry feminist around here from time to time, who might come across as supporters of Hillary. But the reality is that their passion comes more from OPPOSING Barack Obama than it does from ‘support’ of Hillary. They either has a real problem with men, or a real problem with blacks, or a maybe it’s confined to just black men. Not sure.

But you’re right, other then them, there aren’t really any left-leaning folks in support of Hillary. They can be located on the repug sites, or the Blue Dog Dems.

Thanks for the sharing of the disappointment Walter, but hopefully you’ll see from the post below, from Evergreen2U, the signifigance to women is overblown, and in many cases, misinterpreted.

If anything, it could be said that Hillary’s antics set women back, because no thinking person of any gender is willing to put such an unprincipled person in the highest office. We’ve had nearly 8 years of this stuff, and it’s nearly killed us.

Hillary has given us every indication that she would continue the damage if she were to be given the power, and that simply eliminates her from any consideration.

Most Americans aren’t so concerned about what gender the next president is, or what race the next president is. We just need somebody that will actually perform the duties of the office in a way that will allow us to take our government back for the thugs who highjacked it. Hillary won’t, and neither will McCain, so that pretty much settles it. If we weren’t sure before, we damn sure are NOW!

And, I remain concerned about those who have somehow ever believed progress for women was going to be so dependent on a Hillary presidency anyway. It doesn’t seem to acknowledge any of the progress that we (women) HAVE been making over the years, and by our own efforts.

So, this is a loss for Hillary, NOT for the rest of Americans, including the women of our nation.

And, she did it to herself.

God knows where this comment will go but it refers to Apple pie’s answer to my question on money to Israel.  What you describe is a form of money laundering isn’t it?  Is that legal now?

From the beginning I saw the opportunistic planning for what it was.  Your post places another perspective on a very strange story.  In some ways the Clinton’s seem more the odd couple. For Hillary the exacted toll is apparent, one can tell from her self destructive actions to how she carries herself lately.

Yes, a sad tale.

She has done a Great disservice to Women Now and possilby into the Future. Let’s be Honest- the red Carpet was Rolled out for her from the Start-SHE TRIPPED AND FELL!!She had far more Advantages then ANY other candidate. Media was falling all over themselves to ‘touch her skirt and Kiss her’. About 6 yrs ago I was one who would have been doing the same, but then she actually started working in Gov’t. her Votes, her concessions, her Dereliction of Duty while on the Armed Services Com (con), Now her Campaign tactics and Offensive Rhetoric has not just caused me to hate her- I FEAR her. She ahs proven not only to be as Ignorant and arrogant as W, but as underhanded and corrupt as Cheney!
She had the Bar lowered for her, couldn’t jump it - so screamed to lower it more! She cries ‘Sexism’ while demanding Special Priviledges, considerations and Treatment. She has Shown All the Worst attributes of the Female Gender. she lacks Dignity, Grace and , the Libbers Motto, ‘Fair Play’.She is setting an example for younger woman that if you are Not winning by th eStandard Rules Cry, Stomp your feet and Hold Your breath and To Hell with everyone Else.Seh is a Disgrace, an embarassment and detriment to Equal Rights for Women. Ferraro has proven to be the same Abomination to OUR cause!
How do Honorable Women conduct themselves- Mosley Braun, Albright. But they seem to be a dying Breed. By pulling the ‘Sexism’ card she is pointing out she is a Female, that is the Reason Obama has been smart enough NOT to Pull the Racism Card. he is Not running to be the ‘Black Presidential Candidate’ he is running to just be a Presidential candidate.Frankly She , Feinstien, Rice, Ferraro, Pelosi… are all Strengthening Sexist attitudes. A Big F*cking Thanks from US women who are out here in the ‘Trenches’ EVERYDAY- YOU ARE UNDERMINIG OUR EFFORTS!!!You are PROVING the StereoTypes. Jesus have some Self Respect or at least some consideration for th eRest of US trying to Break the ‘Glass Ceiling’ by Playing by the Standard Rules. In fact we preferr they RAISE the Barr to Prove we Do Not Need ‘Special Accomdations’. YOu are Killing US Libbers, with your ‘feminist’ demands!!!!!

You picked up on that too, eh Jackpine?

IS there really 57 states?

How about some education for all? Just the basics…Obama said he would deliver.

My Lord, have you all lost your minds? 

She started her campaign with the bigggest namebrand in the political world. 

Her spouse is a former President of rock star dimensions.

She was supposed to be the presumptive nominee from the beginning of her ill-managed campaign.  No one put a gun to her head and forced her to enter the race as the arrogant person she was prior to Iowa.

She has been absolutely ruthless in every negative attack against every male competitor throughout this year, from Edwards to Obama.  Funny how Obama was gracious to give her a pass on the latest gaffe regarding RFK assassination remarks.

She said pretty much the same thing in an interview with Newsweek and she was given a pass then.

Another by the way; when the rare time that any of her opponents in this year long race have ever criticized her, she then cries, Abuse!

She has been given a pass on every mispeak uttered out of her mouth from NAFTA to Bosnia.

She can claim that she had nothing to do with any of the ugly things launched at Obama, but the funny thing is that there is always one of her camp involved.

She boasts the support of white racists as her justification for being the nominee. Despicable!

I remember her insistence on Obama during one of the debates, that he use the right exact word to denounce, reject, renounce the support of Farrakhan as an anti-Semitic.  So, I am confused, which is worse for her, racism, anti-Semitism, or now is it sexism that she is now using to gain sympathy for herself and her campaign?

There has been case after case of her hubby sexually accosting women throughout their careers, all the way through to Monica Lewinsky and Hillary has aided, abetted and directed the counter reactions to any charges and allegations.  How does any Feminist argue her membership as a feminist at the expense of every woman that he abused?  Defending her only diminishes true feminists everywhere!

Furthermore, she and Bill are in the 100 Millionaire Club and you folks feel sorry for her?!  How does she dare take the money from a child who sold his bike to donate to her campaign?  Wow.

For the record, I started out supporting Kucinich, then Richardson, then Edwards and now Obama.

Hilary Clinton on New Hmpshire Public Radio whe asked why she left her name on theMichigan ballot:

“It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0310edit2mar10,0,4419919.story

Nuff said. Defend this woman at your own risk. Make her an example to your daughters at theirs.

I’m a Clinton hater and i didn’t vote for Obama.

CDS is so very nineties.  And what’s funny about it…at least to all my right leaning friends and acquaintances…is that many lefties (like the vindictive gays you mention) are now saying the same things as all those CDS sufferers of the 90’s.

You might want to write that off as a meme run amok, except that now we have 7 years of reflection on the Clinton years and we can see the fruits of Clintonian policy.

It turns out that what the right was saying back then probably had a great deal of substance.  However, they fell prey to the ole, “It’s not what you say but how you say it.”

Unfortunately, we’ll never get to read the Barrett Report in full when she is no longer a presidential candidate.

In spite of your analogy, [Hillary is better qualified because] “Very few people, including VPs, have had such day-to-day involvement in the executive process at that level” ... obviously you have problems understanding the analogous. So let me make it as simple as I can.

I have watched a mechanic fix a car. Therefore I am a mechanic. I have flown countless hours in airliners, therefore I am an airline pilot. I have seen rockets head for outer space, therefore I can build a rocket. I have seen puppies born, therefore I can give birth to puppies. I have seen a horse win a race, therefore I am a horse. Hillary has lived with a president, therefore she is a president.

Raspberry!
I have seen Hillary supporters in action, therefore I fear Hillary has not got a snowballs chance in hell of winning!

And of course if your stretch has any validity at all that alone is good reason to NOT vote for her!

It’s one thing to listen to and advise your husband. It’s something altogether different to interfere in the policy making process of the president of the United States when you have NO AUTHORITY to do so!

I suspect you would be outraged if you found Laura was doing it. [Although in Bush’s case, that might actually improve things. ]

Hillary may have been wise to do the same, (apologize for her vote). But, despite the fact that she doesn’t generally have a problem with lying and pandering, and switching positions every five minutes, she would actually have a difficult time putting that over, since it’s been abundantly clear to many, that Hillary isn’t the least bit sorry about her vote.

And, if she hadn’t decided somewhere along the line that she would have to act like she was gonna do something, in order to have even a shot at this thing; she wouldn’t have come up with her ‘withdrawal’ plan.

The short of it is that she voted for the war authorization because she was in agreement with it. Her only complaints for the first 3 years were that there hadn’t been enough troops sent to secure “American Interests” (read=oil) quickly enough. HRC has NO problems with the fact that the war was launched, or that the occupation has proceeded, turning Baghdad into the US Capitol of the Middle East. THAT part has all been just fine with her.

And yep, she’s ON RECORD saying that Saddam absolutely had to go, and that “Saddam never does anything without the use of force.” Since then, she’s also on record a few times for blaming the Iraqi regime for not accomplishing what they should be accomplishing, (remember the ‘benchmarks’) Here again, read - OIL. They still haven’t signed it over to all of the US/British and other transnationals. Cheney is pissed, and so is Hillary.

Additionally, Hillary wasn’t about to apologize for that decision, because she planned on winning the nomination without ever having to make such a committment, and never had any intention of ending the atrocity perpetrated against Iraq. Not for an instant have I ever believed that Hillary would begin withdrawal, because she refused to even consider such until about a year ago.

Clearly ‘withdrawal’ was never in her plan when she maneuvered her way onto the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2003. Nope..that was in preparation for her presidential run, and a guarantee that she would keep everything as is, until the REAL ‘mission’ was accomplished..those “American Interests” in Iraq.

Meantime, Obama just upset her whole banana cart, in part by actually responding to the American public, and all the rest has been explained by BobZ. Obama ran a 21st Century campaign, and brought literally hundreds of thousands of citizens into the system.

So, she’s lost, and she still won’t go away. I just read that she is now claiming that the Superdelegates ‘will begin’ to make their decisions after Tuesday. I guess she hasn’t noticed the several dozen that already have, including the many that have changed their minds and are now supporting Obama. In many cases, it’s because of the very awful campaign strategy that she’s employed.

GOOD POINTS!

Thanks a bunch

Clinton ran a lousy campaign and has nobody but herself to blame for her failure to get the nomination. Obama ran rings around her in both strategy and execution. He used modern technology to the degree that Clinton could only dream about. I don’t buy the sexist argument. Obama faced down a far greater challenge in the Rev. Wright guilt by association strategy perpetrated by the neocons and aided greatly by the media. I am disturbed by the two women on Fox News Neil Cavuto show who said that Hillary backers would rather vote for McCain than Obama. If that is the way they really feel, it is a sad commentary that they would rather vote for someone who would basically carry out Bush’s policies for another four years. What are these people thinking or why aren’t they thinking? Are they really going to cut off their noses to spite their faces? Don’t they realize this could be the most important presidential election since 1932 or at least 1968. I am a big Obama backer but no way would I ever vote for McCain if Hillary get’s the nomination. I hope we Democrats don’t end up shooting ourselves in the feet again.

1) That kind of experience doesn’t matter. We don’t want old politics. We shall see…

2) It’s ridiculous to claim first lady experience is real political experience. How old are you, son? Either you were too busy chasing skirts to notice during the 1990s or you’re just being ornary. Hillary was no ordinary First Lady. The funny thing is, first you don’t want her “kind of experience” and then it isn’t really experience at all.

3) State senate is more than just a trophy job, you actually have to make and break policy. People here in Florida know very well the power of State Senate. Oh, it’s real work. and important. But it bears about as much resemblance to the U.S. Congress as running a hotdog cart has to running General Motors. If you think otherwise, than you’re not as well connected to political realities as you pretend to be.

4) Claiming Hillary was ‘in the bedroom’ discussing policy with Bill every night is hearsay, skeptical and adds no merit to her experience because Bill made a lot of mistakes. LOL…I never said any such thing. You really do need to read me more closely (if you can stomach it). What I was saying is no one can vouch for their sex lives, but when it came to politics and policy, they were co-equals - and Bill would often say, and not in condescending humor, that she was the smarter of the two. He had the title and authority; she had a LOT of influence and delegated power.

5) Not all of us look at the Clinton years as the next golden generation. No argument here. There are many things to criticize about his aadministration. But I’d still take his triangulating over the steady dismantling of the New Deal that would have gone on unabated had Republicans continued to own the White House.

I don’t know…is there really 57 states?

I wish I felt the same, tdbach, but unfortunately I have no faith in what a Hillary Clinton administration would put forth into policy. Obama is far from perfect, but I’ll take a chance with the guy standing in a puddle of mud instead of the person drowning in it. I like his record, and I like his approach.

Yes, I suppose we should hold his feet to the fire, but I wouldn’t necessarily blame him too much if hope and change is hard to come by. The system is rigged against it. The real test will be if he actually does try mightily to change the system, or if he simply melts into it. Then, if I were one of his supporters, I’d be pissed.

By the way, I don’t attribute all of those “small donors” to his commanding charisma. David Phouffle (sp?) and his campaign staff deserve a lot of credit for taking Dean’s internet strategy and perfecting it. It got into my wallet, I can tell you, and I didn’t end up voting for him!

Very sharp observations Non Credo.

Perhaps these women quoted by EJ should be angry that Hillary unfairly dominates the media spotlight. Not receiving more exposure for their own accomplishments bolsters a sadly inaccurate perception that Hillary is the only role model for “daughters and granddaughters.”

Tasteless tee-shirts and loud-mouthed bloggers may indeed be sources of ignorant sexist put-downs, but the claims of ageism are ridiculous. John McCain is without a doubt the victim of regular ageist attacks. Virtually every night everyone from Jon Stewart to David Letterman sing the refrain: “He’s sooo old.” Letterman even had McCain do a cameo as a punchline to one of these ageist set pieces. Hillary is not the victim of ageism, she is the victim of Bush being a junior and a growing distrust of executive inbreeding.

Hillary would do well to take a lesson from McCain’s appearances on the same shows which have disparaged his “old-ness.” He has chosen to own the identity — he is after all an old man— and with his sharp sense of humor, try to deflect concerns about his age.

Why does Hillary have to be the winner to be a positive role model for women? By playing the victim as a means to garner the sympathy of a particular demographic and attempt to manipulate media coverage of her losing campaign, she is not empowering women to be strong and self-reliant, she is reinforcing a cult of victimization by providing a template for a generation of “daughters and granddaughters” to perceive a world which seeks to disempower them.

The rejection of Clinton by many younger females may in part be a rejection of this victim stance and a good sign that many of our “daughters and granddaughters” are already on their way to a post-gender existence where individuals, regardless of their sex, take responsibility for their own actions and accomplishments and refuse to let external constructs manipulate the psychology of their successes or failures.

let me just add: Equal pay for equal work!

You’re not helping your cause. Stop denegrating Obama and his supporters. Obama is no empty suit. He’s a phenomenal candidate, a once in a lifetime political star. You’d have to be so vested in his competition that you can’t bear the sound of his voice to not be moved by his speeches. He’s probably one the best pure candidates in 100 years or more. Kennedy was a compelling speaker while president, but I don’t recall him being nearly as powerful as a candidate.

But despite what Aegrus may think, I’m an old cynic. I’m afraid Obama is going to run into a brick wall when he gets to Washington. The mess left by Bush is so deep, so poisonous, so intractable, that the odds are whoever is elected this year will fail to make a second term. Better to have a toughy like Clinton, who already has a soiled reputation as a political hardballer go in there and try to pick up the pieces and get us back on the right track, and leave a promising leader like Obama to bring hope and change to a country that’s in good enough shape that it has a chance of succeeding.

Consider the source Leefeller. Driving Bear is a die-hard repug anyway. Why should he care?

Seeing as how it’s probably true that when people were watching Oprah, they were primarily white women. I’ve never liked her or her show, so I was concerned when she decided to support Obama. I was afraid it might run off alot of THINKING people who feel the same way about her drivel as I do.

But, as it is, she only did the South Carolina stint, so she probably helped out there. (Seems like that might be where she’s originally from, but I couldn’t swear to it).

Anyway, her ratings have been slipping for a long time now, as more and more people are forced to deal with the reality of their own lives, and not the fantasy stuff that Oprah has been selling for nearly 2 decades. She’s been the Corporate Top Saleswoman for a long time now. Time for her and Hillary both to bow out gracefully. Their times have passed, and neither of them have done much for preparing us to deal with the horrific times ahead.

Well arnt we happy all over, are white ladies the same as white women?  Just maybe the Oprah show sucks big time and white women have to work all day, on the other hand Hillary’s campaign sucked big time and the white women still had to work all day.  So much for your polls.

Guess you are happy Oprah did not support Hillary?

Just look at who one of Obama big supporter is

Oprah Winfrey. Oprah main audience is white ladies aka ” soccer moms” for the 3rd time in row Oprah ratings for her TV show are down and so are the sales of her magazine O. You do the math on that one.

Also according to a recent poll the support of white ladies for Obama is dropping see

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10691.html

It does not take a very smart person to see Hillary has run a very shoddy campaign, not only was it extremely divisive and mean spirited, it was poorly run. In the beginning of the campaign, she may have believed she had the job of president with no competition, except Obama came along and fired up many people over hope and change.  Hillary offers nothing but the same old pablum, inside Washington business as usual. 

Obama offered a new twist, a little hope and maybe even some change.  When Hillary attacked hope and change, she attacked all the people even her own supporters.  As I see it, Hillary would offer little change from Bush, no hope and no change. 

We have seen her Hillary bonding with Fox, she has gained votes by right wing support of her campaign and her strange support of McCain while attacking Obama.  Instead of bringing people together she does what the Bush White House has worked at very hard, dividing the people by differences instead of the positive approach which Obama has done by bringing us together and respecting our differences and individuality.

Hillary Clinton may be a women, but she is no lady, her actions speak for themselves.

That’s a favorite theory among many in the punditocracy - especially the ones who were quick to coronate her last year (usually with a tone of lament, not celebration). But I don’t know. I think she underestimated Obama and that may have hurt her in how she approached the caucuses and lower-density states, but I’m not so sure she - or anyone - could stop the Obama bandwagon. But I do agree that it’s remarkable that she’s as close as she is at this point. I speaks to her political skills and toughness. If she were the sort of candidate Obama’s supporters had told her she should be, she’d have been long gone before April.

Unfortunately, those progressive women in your circle are likely to be even more disappointed than the one’s in Hillary’s circle. Corporate controls ain’t going away under an Obama administration, I’m afraid. But we can always “hope”!

I accidently posted this in the wrong comment line:

Felicity,

First, you’ll have to find one of those sites. ‘Taint one among all the general left-leaning sites like Daily Kos, HuffPo, or TD.

Goofy system….my reply to an earlier post showed up here…

Anyway,

Aegrus, you don’t know squat about me, and given that you apparently haven’t read much of what I’ve written here, even when you bother to comment on it, you’re not likely to learn much either.

I’m rather proud of the fact that I haven’t said one thing derogatory about Obama (unless you call the simple and true observation that he is the most inexperienced candidate to reach this level of success in modern history a slur). I have only tried to defend Clinton and Clinton supporters from what I believe to be mob behavior. I’m also fond of pointing out how divisive some of Obama’s supporters are in their ridicule of Clinton and her supporters, while simultaneously excoriating Clinton for divisive politics.

As for your spin obsession. Well, we now know you hate all things marketing, which pretty much kills the idea of a market economy (wherefore America?), so you probably think all spin is garbage, but I hope I’m not the first to inform you that “spin” isn’t just a way of talking about things, it’s a way of seeing and understanding things. “Spin” is something you, like all of us, do constantly. Like when you read my comments…

Cyrena,

First of all, I wasn’t responding to your post, but to Louise’s. I did lump you in with her in denegrating Clinton’s White House experience (much as Louise and Karen did, and Louis again subsequently in her absurd response - engineer indeed! If you’ve been singing Hillary’s praises as an experienced candidate, than I’ve missed it and I apologize.

I believe you make two mistakes that you have criticized me for:

1) you put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. I didn’t say he has NO experience, only that he has less experience than any candidate in modern history with a realistic chance of being elected. Every viable candidate before him has either been governor (hense executive branch experience) or long-time national experience (usually in the Senate). No one has gone from state legislature to consideration for president, let alone front-runner status. As you may recall, after Obama’s keynote address to the 2004 convention, BEFORE he became a senator, he was discussed as a possible presidential candidate. This has been going on for a LONG tine. By the way, I’m not even really suggesting that experience is the only - or even the most - important quality. This whole argument started because I was trying to point out how some women, who think Hillary is emmenantly qualified and an extraordinary candidate feel a sort of PTS reaction to having her beat out by a less-experienced, younger man. Take it for what it’s worth. If you have no empathy for that reaction, so be it.

2) You misrepresent me as “blowing off” her war vote. First of all, I think you’re wrong that Clinton is a “war monger”, that she “voted for that authorization because SHE WANTED TO ATTACK AND OCCUPY IRAQ AS MUCH AS DICK BUSH DID” And you base this claim on what? Was it her press conference after the war vote to urge Bush to use this authorization to get inspectors in and work toward a diplomatc solution that tipped you off? I’ve been having a hard time locating any record of her saying that we need to attack Iraq before terrorists attack here. Perhpas you can point the way? But second, I did indeed question her judgment in giving Bush the liberty to attack (I just tried to explain it), and said that judgment was fair game. So stop mucking it up.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Please explain why I should be looking for a website.

All three of those sites, by the way, are generally opinion based.

Perhaps you should read The Nation, The Progressive, Mother Jones or Democracy Now?

Reaching out tdbach, sensing your humility already.

First, you’ll have to find one of those sites. ‘Taint one among all the general left-leaning sites like Daily Kos, HuffPo, or TD.

You’re annoying Tdbach, for putting words and thoughts in the minds and mouths of others.

I haven’t heard anyone claim that Rodham gained ‘nothing’ from being in the White House for 8 years. I am also fully aware of the fact that the hatred from the right, (back in those days) was in part due to her active participation as First Lady, though for whatever the reasons, the same did NOT occur with Eleanor Roosevelt, or Roslyn Carter, who were ALSO very politically involved. (So, I’m not going to try to explain the extreme hatred displayed toward “Billary’ as far back as 1993, when the first “Impeach Billary” bumper sticker appeared) I PERSONALLY, had NO problems with her hands on involvement, since I am myself a progressive woman, and would NOT be inclined to hang around the White House baking cookies, or conducting garden tours if I was the in that position. That HRC was far more active than most woman in that position was NOT an issue for me, and it probably wasn’t an issue for MILLIONS of American women.

So let me repeat, we are NOT suggesting that Hillary Clinton gained nothing of any value from her tenure in the White House. Obama himself has acknowledged the same, and on more than one occasion. YOUR unforgivable sin is your consistent attempt to frame that as the SAME kind of experience that she has garnered from her position as Senator, and Obama’s time at the same. It ISN’T. And, you can’t make it so.

You want to consistently claim that Obama has NO experience, when he has far MORE of the relevant experience than GWB had, and clearly as MUCH as Hillary, because of his time in the Illinois State Senate. You ALSO fail to recognize that this particular type of experience, while OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT, (even though the American people apparently didn’t think so when they hired the moron) is not the ONLY thing that matters.

You also continue to blow off her war authorization as some minor detail, as if she just maybe ‘made a mistake’ or was somehow as much misled as many others in Congress. Has it ever occurred to you that Hillary Rodham voted for that authorization because SHE WANTED TO ATTACK AND OCCUPY IRAQ AS MUCH AS DICK BUSH DID?

From where I’ve been sitting for the past 6 years, that’s EXACTLY what she wanted, and she remained CONSISTENT on that until just over a year ago, when she decided she’d have to put on a different face, and make noises about withdrawal, if she wanted to fulfill her lifelong dream! (of becoming the first female president).

And yeah…some of us (like the millions who loudly protested this war atrocity since before it was even launched) have some real problems with the idea of replacing one war monger for another, regardless how much experience she has. If ‘experience’ was all that mattered, there were other candidates that had more than Hillary and Obama combined. Hell, if we were OK with an experienced war monger, McSame would serve the purpose as well as Hillary, since she’s McSame too! In fact, there’s NO difference between John McSame and Hillary McSame, except for his seniority in the Senate.
Now if you insist on going on and on about Rodham’s ‘experience’ in the White House, then we’re gonna have to count ALL of her ‘experiences’ in the White House..Travel Gate, Whitewater, and maybe even the crystal and china that she stole and had to give back.

Why not just quit before you muck it up even more? It’s supporters like you that have helped remind us of all the reasons we don’t like her ‘experience’ so much.

“these ‘swoon and faint’ ‘hope and change’ zombies”: Insult

“Barry is an emty suit with no experience.”: Misspelled Falsity

“no one wants to hear a revival meeting every time he gets up to speak.”: Hearsay

“he’s no rock star and he’s no messiah.”: Irrelevant

“And, by the way, is their really 57 states in the USA.  I think the guy who wants to be president said their was.”: Out of context misstatement

Thank you for proving my point, Lorraine. Hillary can still run. We have four more days of Democratic primary season. Would have loved to see Hillary rise to the populist rhetoric she wanted to achieve, but she’s lost fair and square. I, unequivocally, would have voted for Hillary Clinton to prevent a McCain presidency if she won the nomination.

Nothing the Clintonistas say has any merit. It’s nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Period.

THANK YOU Aegrus, for pointing these things out, and especially this:

“...Again and again, people like me commend Hillary on her toughness, compliment certain policy points she has and support her staying in the race (contrary to the falsified facts you may have heard) even though she has lost. We provide legitimate criticism of her policy choices, her campaign tactics and valid skepticism about her experience claims. We admit Hillary would be a good president, and acknowledge the good as well as the bad from the old Clinton regime.

We have not received any fair reciprocation, only invective and false-recollections of abuse at Hillary…”

Again and again from people like you and many others of us. In fact, for all of the time that I’ve been reading and posting here, MOST of us have recognized all of these same things, and made these same commendations.

In fact, before Hillary really started up with her kitchen sink antics, and all of the rest, I’ve actually DEFENDED her against what have been clearly recognized as nastiness and hateful invective that was not legitimate.

HOWEVER…there have been very, very, very few such comments registered here against Hillary. Now maybe these hateful things are happening in the MSM, but as a few of us noted from an earlier piece by Marie Cocco, making all of these same complaints, most of us had never even been AWARE of these so-called MSM atrocities against Hillary. They haven’t appeared HERE, or on any of the other news sites that I read or watch.

So, let’s hope that Hillary’s supporters have in fact paid VERY CLOSE attention to what you’re saying here. I for one am really sick of all of the invectives from these folks who for whatever the reasons, are using pure hysteria instead of their brain cells to make important decisions. And yeah, the MSM is loving every bit of it, and the Hillary campaign was loving all of the sensationalism, and stirring it all up when they foolishly believed it could be used against anything or anyone who didn’t overwhelming support her. But when it backfired,-on her- it became everyone else’s fault. 

This has been going on for months. I have noted though, that some of the hardest core of her ideologues seemed to have dropped off a bit. I doubt that it will ever even ‘register’ that they’ve done her more harm than any Obama supporter ever could.

Aegrus,

Good opinion and comments, I will be the first to admit Obams is not perfect.  His good qualities exceed Hillary’s from a layman’s view.  Her divisive tacts have been disgusting, the Hillary folks seem to accept it as a matter of business like the war.

AEGRUS - I suggest you send your post to every site supporting Hillary.  They just might get the true picture of where they are and where we are and why we are where we are.  Well said.

Does anyone know why we continue to send billions of dollars/per year to Israel, the 16th wealthiest country in the world?  How about to whom does it go?  Mind you, I’m not faulting Israel - no fools they - I’m questioning our sanity.

omniadeo, you hit the nail on the head here, and many of us have made the same observations.

•  “Obviously, short of some kind of major upheaval in deep politics in the US, anyone who tries to free us from this stranglehold will have to obtain and consolidate some power before doing it.”

As difficult as it may be for many, (including me) to witness and attempt to ‘interpret’ Obama’s statements in respect to Israel, the bottom line is that he can do absolutely NOTHING until he can in fact obtain and consolidate some power. In short, he has to win the election first, and that’s not gonna happen if he pisses them off.

Bottom line, people do what they gotta do. We don’t have to like it, but as another poster has previously mentioned, we take a risk every time we go through these elections, and in just about everything else we do as well.

More to the point, there are no other options available in terms of this election anyway. So, if ANYBODY is gonna do it, it’s him. And while we can continue to point out all that we don’t like about his stance toward Israel, (I do specifically remember hearing him say a few weeks ago, that his ‘support’ does NOT mean that he does or will agree with everything Israel does) I’m not finding much use in that, knowing full well that the other likely prospects have already totally committed to ‘whatever Israel does.”

So it seems like a waste of time to keep going on and on about his political posture for the moment, when the options are worse, and we know damn well that he won’t get to where he needs to be, by taking some hard line position against them while he’s trying to get there.

I spent 28 years sharing life with an engineering genius. I enjoyed his successes, and the rewards he received. I watched and participated and enjoyed. But when those 28 years came to an end and he was gone, I was left with a pile of memories, not an engineering degree. I was in no way an engineering genius. It just doesn’t work like that.

I have a real problem with your inference that Hillary, an unelected person behaved in the White House as though she had the authority election provides. Personally I doubt very much she did. Clintons former cabinet members collectively have no memory of her active participation in policy and power!

But you got one thing right.

“Her judgment is fair game, however.”

Hillary shot herself in the foot when she displayed her lack of judgment and voted to give a republican president cart-blanche authority to wage war without end, without cause.

And she continues to shoot herself in the foot.

And I don’t need to waste the time or space reminding you of her talent for doing so!

Judgment? What judgment?

1)Hillary is just inciting riotous fervor in her supporters with these talks about misogyny.

2)It has absolutely nothing to do with her campaign, her policy positions or ability as a politician.

3)It’s terribly divisive, hateful rhetoric.

4)Hillary won’t win.

5)Hillary won’t be VP.

6)Supporters of Hillary are allowing themselves to be manipulated by falsified statements, inaccurate spin and emotional rhetoric.

I’m sick of it. All of the Clintonistas will admit defeat. Total Surrender because it has been extremely difficult dealing with the parroting of falsehoods as truth and never-ending spin.

Again and again, people like me commend Hillary on her toughness, compliment certain policy points she has and support her staying in the race (contrary to the falsified facts you may have heard) even though she has lost. We provide legitimate criticism of her policy choices, her campaign tactics and valid skepticism about her experience claims. We admit Hillary would be a good president, and acknowledge the good as well as the bad from the old Clinton regime.

We have not received any fair reciprocation, only invective and false-recollections of abuse at Hillary.

Obama supporters ARE NOT the Mainstream Media. The MSM is neither Republican, Democrat or any other bias other than money, sensationalism and entertainment journalism. Trying to foist that off in our faces when we’ve been willing to compromise and listen to your parroted untruths while also getting bashed for calling out real racially biased comments or for supposedly being sexist when no evidence of proof can be provided is ridiculous.

The Hillary campaign has brought out the worst in its supporters and Hillary herself.

If indeed you believe what you spew, if you are not attempting to be humorous your comments seem sanctimonious to me, please show us the way of the road to unity.

The only clown here is you, tdbach. How you can possibly believe the garbage spin you perpetuate is beyond me.

Also, please stop saying we should show anyone respect. Every time the Obama camp tries to extend its hand, we get it slapped away and trampled upon by false facts, absurd spin and hatred.

You’re an ideologue.

“The point is, Clinton’s experience so far outweighs Obama’s in terms of what is involved in the job of President, as to be ridiculous”

1) That kind of experience doesn’t matter. We don’t want old politics.

2) It’s ridiculous to claim first lady experience is real political experience.

3) State senate is more than just a trophy job, you actually have to make and break policy. People here in Florida know very well the power of State Senate.

4) Claiming Hillary was ‘in the bedroom’ discussing policy with Bill every night is hearsay, skeptical and adds no merit to her experience because Bill made a lot of mistakes.

5) Not all of us look at the Clinton years as the next golden generation.

Agreed. But at least he has said he does not equate Israel and Likud. That is a step forward. Obviously, short of some kind of major upheaval in deep politics in the US, anyone who tries to free us from this stranglehold will have to obtain and consolidate some power before doing it. Can Obama do that? Remains to be seen.

You, like Cyrena and Karen, seem to disregard Hillary’s time in the White House as “experience”. You point to Obama’s time in the Illinois state senate as REAL experience, as opposed to Hillary as just that ornamental First Lady.

What short memories you have! The Right hated Hillary from the outset of Clinton’s POTUS tenure for one simple reason: she wasn’t playing the classic First Lady role. She was, as Bill said, a “two-for.” She was involved on just about every political and policy decision in his administration. Many have wasted their time speculating on the intimacy of Bill and Hill’d relationship - in th bedroom, but no one at the time questioned their intimacy in the Oval Office. Very few people, including VPs, have had such day-to-day involvement in the executive process at that level (Chief of Staff is one possible exception).

And interesting aside (to me at least; your mileage may vary): My hunch is that Clinton’s vote for the authorization to use force in Iraq came as much from her grasp of - and sympathy for - the needs of presidents in conducting foreign policy as it did her sensitivity to her NY constituants so soon after 9/11. Pelosi and others in congress who voted against the resolution (and Obama who spoke against it) had an outsider’s perspective, and in Pelosi’s case, a distinctly congressional, political perspective. Clinton, so soon “out of office” identified with the executive position: to vote against the resolution would tie Bush’s hands at a crucial junction in foreign policy. It may have blinded her to what so many of us saw, who distrusted Bush and believed him to be a dangerously loose cannon and marginally competent at best.

The point is, Clinton’s experience so far outweighs Obama’s in terms of what is involved in the job of President, as to be ridiculous - and yet she gets absolutely no credit for it. (Is it sexist, or simply politically expedient?) Her judgment is fair game, however.

Anyone with a clear view of the history vote to authorize military action in Iraq knows that over a third of the Senate saw the resolution for what it was: Cowardly abdication of the role of Congress to the Executive. Those who voted for it, and particularly Democrats, and especially Clinton and Edwards were casting cynical votes to allow the illegal invasion of a country based on the wildly dangerous preemption doctrine combined with easily debunked WMD scare tactics. They did it thinking it would be a quick little war like Desert Storm and that we could grab the oil in time for them to challenge Bush. I vowed at the time never to vote for a politician who voted for that resolution. Clinton’s cynical support for the effort to push Iran to a showdown and her irresponsible code words to the Likud Lobby in the US about “obliterate them” seal the deal here.

Finally let me quote the un-repudiated words of Clinton rep Anne Lewis when an Obama rep rightly pointed out that Obama doesn’t believe unquestioning allegiance to the policies of Likud is the same as support for Israel.

Lewis said: “The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.”

Funny, I thought the role of the President of the United States was to seek the best policies for the people of the United States at home and abroad with our allies. Try this “The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of [fill in here: Germany, Costa Rica, even Alabama.] It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.” Absurd.

Does the feminist movement really want to have universal health care and “take-our daughters-to-war-day” in a nuclear winter? Think about it.

The comments to this article are as predictable as the drooling of Pavlov’s dogs at the sound of a bell.

Women voice their outrage at Clinton’s treatment?

*ding*

This sexist crap is total BS!! Clinton is the worst possible candidate - a war monger, liar, panderer, power-hungry Lady MacBeth!

As one of the most outspoken, articulate (and wordy) howlers in this pack, Cyrena sums it up best: “For so many of these women, it never has been about whether or not Hillary would actually be a good president, or if she has the JUDGEMENT needed at this time, in these circumstances, to do the job that ALL Americans need a president to do. No, it’s only about breaking the ideological glass ceiling, for their daughters and their granddaughters.”

Really? So these women aren’t true Americans, looking out for what’s best for our country? They’re looking out for themselves at the expense of our national interest? Political terrorists, sabotaging legitimate political debate and killing THE ONE TRUE CANDIDATE for an extremist cause? That sounds familiar!

*Calling Dr. Rove! Calling Dr. Rove! Code Blue in Room 2008!*

Does it ever occur to any of you that these outraged women actually do believe that Clinton would make a great president - a superior president to any, including her husband, in the past 40 years or so? Has occurred to any of you that they haven’t bought the old right wing meme about the Clintons, hook line and sinker, like so many on the Internet Left (the only innovation coming from the left is the war-monger label, based on her Authorization to use force in Iraq vote). Does it ever occur to any of you that Obama is indeed the most inexperienced candidate in modern history to be nominated to head a major national party, and that that fact might have some disturbing resonance with women whose female candidate has more presidential experience (albeit as a “co-president” with her husband) in modern history, save G.H.W. Bush and Nixon? (Not the most heartening of precidents, I admit, but…)

If you clowns would show some respect for these outraged women, even if you disagree with their assesment of Clinton and what she has endured from the media, you might actually play a part in achieving the unity you claim to want (and so readily blame Clinton for destroying).

cyrena, I second Karen’s observation. Brilliant post! And Karen so was yours!

Life is full of decisions. Sometimes the choice is befuddling and sometimes it’s so obvious there should be no question.

Like if you’ve got two kids who want to drive the car. Do you let sister because she’s never had a turn? Or do you let brother because he knows how to drive?

Sisters turn will come. When she gets her drivers license.

Likewise we will have a woman president. When the woman who wants the job turns out to be the candidate most qualified for the job!

Meanwhile I sincerely hope all those heartbroken women, who have all done remarkable things in their own lives, calm down long enough to recognize, it isn’t about sexism, at least not in the democrat camp. So heartbreaking or not, if they want to be part of the campaign that ends up electing the first woman president ... they need to get busy and find the right candidate!

The qualification “female” is NOT the only one required!

Something just occurred to me. Perhaps the sense of anger and frustration is related as much to the state of the nation as anything. Stay with me while I try to sort this out.

A lot of democrats are convinced we will have a democrat president. Because the horrors of eight years of the worst president on record, and the fact that he is a republican are fresh on the collective mind. 

Heading the list of horrors, is the unnecessary attack on Iraq. And by association the names of all those in congress who eagerly supported that unnecessary attack. So Hillary’s thoughtless vote to authorize that war has worked against her.
Note: I say thoughtless because there were many females in congress who voted against authorizing the war. My own Senator citing as her reason for NOT authorizing the war, “I feel there is not enough evidence to justify a pre-emptive attack, or the allegations that Saddam is a threat to our security.”

Now that is thoughtful. And there were a lot of women in congress who felt the same way. Nancy Pelosi for example. She voted against, for much the same reason.

This quandary would explain why the focus has shifted from the war to the economy, which no question is in a shambles, but associating the war policy that typifies republican politics with the collapsing economy has been carefully avoided. Even though the one has been a direct contributor to the other.

Why is that? When Kerry ran for president his vote to authorize war worked against him, became the albatross around his neck. While proving he was against war became the swift boat fodder. He came off as a bit of a split.

Anyway, to get back to my original thought. Perhaps what these women are really saying is ... the chaotic state of the nation is the best chance we have of getting a woman in the White House, because the mess we are in is the best chance we have of taking the White House. And if that is the case, then they don’t have the best candidate and they know it!

Judging from the tone of this article Hillary’s supporters have already given up. Yet, like it or not, until the last Super Delegate is counted, it’s not over.

From Hillary supporter Therese Murray, “No woman would have run with Obama’s resume.  She wouldn’t have been considered.”

There’s the rub.  It was Hillary’s resume, in fact, that did her in.  And, of course, Hillary wouldn’t have been considered were she not a former FL. Name recognition counts big time in presidential politics.

Perhaps rightly so, women of Hillary’s generation, I think, believe that to achieve fame and fortune they must resort to the old by-hook-or-crook method - any means legal or illegal, just or unjust. Hillary seems to have adopted the method but frankly she hasn’t been clever enough to keep it under the radar screen.

Hillary alienated my vote when she approved the war and continues to this day with divisive techniques, using fear and war as part of her platform.

Then of course, Bill her husband may have something to do with my not voting for her.

Sexism is alive and well, and I find it unacceptable like bigotry and racism.  Even so, since Hillary has come into using her campaign to constantly force a feeling that I have to prove I am not a sexist,  this has become quite annoying.  When in-fact the sexism is all theirs .

Maybe, just maybe the reason that Clinton isn’t winning is because more of us like obama?  You know, because of his positions on things, and his personality, and the fact that he is not a washington insider who has been caught up in the game for about as long as i have been alive. 

Nah, that couldn’t be it, must be cause she is a woman.

Being a male, I risk being pummeled…

...and being an Obama supporter that risk doubles.

I get a sense that anything other than Clinton winning represents either “poor treatment” or some form of “misogyny.”

Has there been a cloud of negative gender issues raised during the campaign? Yes. They are out there. However, I have seen the issue raised most frequently from the Clinton campaign itself.

I’m of an age similar to the Clintons, though a little younger, but old enough to know that I would never, ever, ever call a woman “girl” anymore than calling a minority person (esp. Black) “boy.” I’m of an age to recognize that both are diminishing and pejorative.

And yet we hear the former president Clinton talk of “his girl” (ownership as well as being demeaning) over and over and over, yet no supporter ever cries foul on that.

Are issues of race out there? Certainly. Early on, it could be argued, the raising the issue of race came from the Obama camp. At least, up until the former president Clinton compared Obama’s race to the failed attempt by another black candidate. There were many failed candidates that ran against Bill Clinton, so why focus on the failed black candidate unless it was the color of skin that was the salient comparison. Yes, and let’s not forget just how important it is that Hillary carries “hard working, white” voters in states no Democrat is likely to win in the fall.

Ah, well. I share a recent study quoted elsewhere in Truthdig of a recent study showing that the media have actually treated McCain the worst, though acknowledging that Obama follows up in second place to that category (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080529_study_media_were_mean_to_mccain_not_clinton/).

This is just another in the endless string of “if we say it enough our followers will accept it is true” talking points pouring from the Clinton campaign since the kitchen sink unplugged and has drained on us all.

•  ‘Look what they’ve done to her, we were so close.’ They wanted this for their daughters and granddaughters. ... It’s so heartbreaking.”

No, THIS is what’s heartbreaking. And yes…it IS heartbreaking, because it is such a dangerous mentality, and we all suffer. For so many of these women, it never has been about whether or not Hillary would actually be a good president, or if she has the JUDGEMENT needed at this time, in these circumstances, to do the job that ALL Americans need a president to do. No, it’s only about breaking the ideological glass ceiling, for their daughters and their granddaughters, AS IF having a female president is actually going to remove that ideological ceiling overnight, FOR ALL FEMALES.

That they believe this is heartbreaking for all of us, because of the superficiality involved. Never mind if Hillary is the worst example of what a female in that or any other political office would represent. She at least appears to be a female, and so that’s supposed to just wipe out all of the misogyny and ageism that they perceive, even where it doesn’t exist.

The fact that it DOES exist, (this misogyny less than ageism in my own opinion) provides a cover for trying to force an overall less candidate down our throats, by blaming it on the fact that she’s a woman, and not on the realities that she’s not the best candidate for the problems that we need a president to deal with at this point in our history.

And while the media may have been partly to blame for this, how do they blame those of us who are in no way INFLUENCED by the ‘media’ but make our decisions based on what we see, hear and read from the candidates themselves, and that we look at more than just the “resumé” for such an important position.

This is a ‘set-up’ not so different from all of the others that have resulted from race, gender, and other discriminations of the past, and I remember them well. I can well remember the dismay that I used to experience when positions that had for so long been totally unreachable by racial and other minorities finally began to be filled, and inevitably were filled by the LEAST QUALIFIED people for the job, and eventually I realized that it was INTENTIONAL, because it wasn’t a matter of not having other racial or gender choices to choose from, who actually WERE qualified.

However, this served the real agenda. On the one prong, it said..OK, OK…so we’re hiring some blacks, or some other racial minority, or we’re hiring a woman, and satisfying the status quo. But, we’re gonna hire the worst of the lot, and that way, when they screw up, we’ll be able to blame the entire group, and just say…see, these blacks aren’t up to the task, or these women aren’t up to the task, and this proves our point.

And that’s the cruelest irony of these women who believe that Hilary’s election to president is somehow the ONLY way to make an opening for other women, as if it would even do that anyway. Selecting the WRONG woman for that purpose has the ultimate consequence of very possibly setting us further BACK, not forward.

Meantime, it’s ‘look what THEY have done to her’ and that’s an understandable reaction, because we KNOW that the media can and will do this. They didn’t just start. But in the process, by blaming it ALL ‘on the media’ they choose not to hold Hillary the least bit responsible for her own actions, or the fact that in the true light of day, her ‘resume’ doesn’t hold up any better than her competitors, if in fact that was the ONLY thing we should be looking at, and it isn’t.

Meantime, if it is that important to so many women to have a female in the executive office, then next time, they better run a better female candidate.