Tell me, Sweetie, What's My Name?

I'll admit it, the so-called end-game in this long Democratic nomination battle is beginning to confuse me. Let's see if we can get it all down. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee, favored in that status by national magazine cover stories. Yet no one has told the voters: either in West Virginia, where poor laggard Hillary Clinton (attacked by rabies-infected "Democrats") could barely pull off a 41-point squeaker, nor in the general party populace, where Democrats overwhelmingly want her to stay in the race till the conclusion. They also want her to be the Vice-Presidential nominee, should she come up short. Or form a third party and keep running. Yet there was John Edwards - waiting, waiting, waiting - till after the poorest state in the nation voted to announce that Obama is his man on poverty, and has been ever since they did their manly two-step on Hillary's head in October. Does it mean Edwards wants to be on the ticket? And does it mean the Presumptive Twins will knock off the evil sister - today abandoned in grimy opportunistic fashion by the leadership of a major  women's rights group to the outrage of its membership - in 'Ole Kentucky next week? Finally, what's the truth in the rumor that Obama greeted Edwards as "sweetie" when his private jet brought the poor people's campaign to the mass rally in Michigan? It all makes my head spin with weariness - next you'll try and tell me Al Giordano's a Mets fan. Go ahead, blow my mind.

Comments

[Judith]

Thanks - I thought it was just me.

[NatTurner]

What's so hard to figure out? Hillary's "41-point squeaker" netted her 12 delegates; she's no closer to winning the nomination now than she was before WV.

[scottreads]

The disproportionately ugly and heated reaction of folks like Aravois has really opened my eyes this primary season. I never thought that people who called themselves liberals or progressives would essentially behave with all the decorum of a band of villagers with torches demanding the death of the "monster." On her worst day, the worst you can say about HRC is that she's a triangulating, split-the-difference, Village-approved Dem - you know, the kind that have ruled over us and run from an ideological fight for the last 40 years. The point is that her flaws are no different than of the vast majority of our Dem "leaders." So why the overreaction and all the hue and cry for her to get out, when (as Boehlert of MediaMatters has pointed out) NO ONE over the last 30 years ever pointed a gun at the head of Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, or Jesse Jackson to do that? People like Shakes have rightly called the misogyny theme, and folks like Anglachel and Weboy have named the class and regional problems (ie, the "creative class" boiz of the Party hate southerners and working class folks as uncultured racist assholes, and the Clintons in their eyes are too close to "them.") Which is rich when you think about it because the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for defending the interests and the aspirations of ALL the people, especially those who have historically faced real obstacles. A party can't accomplish that, though, while simultaneously indulging in virulent misogynist BS that insults all women and dissing the values and interests of working-class Americans. Silly me, I thought like Liss that feminism was a core progressive value and that sticking up for the working class was the same. As I said, I'm surprised and saddened that enthusiasm for Obama has come to mean jettisoning these essential principles, and I won't forget who led the charge to do it.

[Show Me]

Thanks Tom...you are not the only Democrat who is confused. I've said it many times, I feel as if I walked through the looking glass, everything I thought I knew about the Democratic Party does not seem to be true anymore.Obama does not hold up on any of the issues that are important to me. I never really trusted Edwards, always thought he was too slick by half, although I love Elizabeth.It has to be ambition, nothing else explains it, Obama has signaled that he has no interest in the poor of any race or ethnicity. He is weak on choice,weak on healthcare,forget about women's rights or gay rights.Looks like we are now going to have two parties who don't give a damn about working people.I am ready for a third party.Can't stay with this one. I will vote a write-in for Hillary.

[Pat Johnson]

I am as baffled as anyone else. The Breck Girl was on Larry King only a few days ago saying he would not endorse anyone at this time. What made him change his mind? And then the booing from the teenaged crowd against a woman presidential campaign as they stood there smiling and grinning was despicable. The level that has been brought to this campaign could not get any lower. It is disgusting. I will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee. He has done nothing to gain my vote and has silently endorsed this sexism. The same can be said for the DNC. I see a third party in the offing.

[Tom In Texas]

Hillary would never, ever run on a third party ticket. She knows she would essentially elect McCain, who is demonstrably worse than Obama on every issue that has been raised here. On top of that, she would be unelectable as a Senator if she destroyed the Democratic Party in her attempt. It will never happen.

[Rain]

Edwards offered VP slot as poverty czar?
As soon as Obama is officially confirmed, I'm leaving the Party and sitting it out in November.

scottreads:"The disproportionately ugly and heated reaction of folks like Aravois has really opened my eyes this primary season. I never thought that people who called themselves liberals or progressives would essentially behave with all the decorum of a band of villagers with torches demanding the death of the "monster.""

Very symbolic and highly ritualised this year, more like the medieval European Witch-Craze, the treatment of heretics like Anne Hutchinson, or a ritual Honor Killing. I'm still stunned Hillary received any votes at all. Is that progress?

Most Dems will probably come back to the fold anyway, and I am probably a statistical outlier and atypical, but no matter how mainstream a Democrat Obama tries to play his game now, I can't validate his behaviour with my vote.
The Ends Do Not Justify the Means.

What the Party leadership did to rig it as well, is beyond belief. Maybe they have always been doing it, and I never paid enough attention to notice it in previous primaries.

[HenryFTP]

It seems to me that there are 3 levels to this, 2 I think I understand, one mystifying.

1. Beltway insider level -- a good old-fashioned dust-up for power and influence. The regulars (Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, et al.) couldn't wait to knife Hillary, who they still view as an arriviste after all these years (and her husband). Raised as a Beltway brat myself, this is easy to understand -- they've never gotten over how Bill and Hillary were their superiors in fighting and beating Republicans in the Age of Reagan. And they really loathe the fact that Hillary and Bill clearly have "juice" with the voters that they can only dream of having.

2. Corporate Media Manipulation level -- we all know what's up here, as the cameras are spittle-flecked in the zeal of the gasbags to get the revenge on the Clintons the media have longed for since the constitutional coup of 1998 collapsed. Just as in 1997-98, the fact that Hillary becomes more popular as more voters get to know her drives the corporate media into paroxysms of rage -- the voters are yet again decisively rejecting the media's judgment. Thus we will continue to be treated forever hereafter to the media's Conventional Wisdom that Hillary and Bill are "racist", casually repeated with utter assurance by people who for the most part would be very uncomfortable visiting the former President's office in Harlem.

3. Obamamania level -- people I once regarded as measured and thoughtful, like Joshua Micah Marshall, have become infected with a virulent strain of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I remember some of the dismissive haughtiness from Kennedy supporters in 1980 vs Carter and Hart supporters in 1984 vs Mondale, but the rage and associated invective are new to me. Perhaps in some deep-seated way these people blame Bill and Hillary for the disaster that has befallen our country in the past 7 years. But that's sheer speculation on my part.

[Judith]

hey Pat Johnson - calling John Edwards "the Breck girl" is pretty nasty, imo. You are a nice person so you may want to rethink repeating that slam...

[Bluegrass Poet]

Thanks for the laughs, Tom. When utterly bewildered, it at least helps to laugh.

The horns of my dilemma are cutting in most uncomfortably. I think HenryFTP probably has it down, with some elements of Anglachel's arguments about Dean's 50-state strategy and trying to un-power the south, but I am as outraged as Rain about the sexism and misogyny. We're supposed to be the good guys but if we can Karl-Rove one of our own I am seriously disillusioned. And a little ashamed that I have reached my advanced age with so many illusions intact.

So can I vote for Obama who has proved himself opportunistic, offensive, and right-leaning? Or can I vote for McCain who promises us 4 more years of Bush in addition to being opportunistic and offensive? I am hoping that time will give me some solution.

At least there is some joy in seeing voters (racist all) still turning out in great numbers to vote for Clinton.

One question. Gabor Steingart here at Der Spiegel argues that the DNC is now essentially riding the tiger and dare not let Clinton beat Obama for fear of violence in the streets. Does anyone here lend credence to such an argument? Sure is scarey.

[kenoshaMarge]

Personally I doubt Edwards has done Obama much good with this sad little political play. Most people are smart enough to realize that it is a tactic designed and implemented to keep the narrative from being about Hillary’s overwhelming win in WV.

I do think that Edwards has done himself some damage with a lot of us. He could have just kept his mouth shut and let the voters have their say. That would have been the "classy" thing to do. And rolling the thing out in a state where both of them took their names off the ballot is also tacky IMO.

Next we'll have Gore stumping for Obama since everyone knows he doesn't like Hillary. That too could backfire. I don't think Americans like the "piling on" thing. And that is how it will be perceived.

And if the Obama supporters are so convinced that he's won, that it's all over, then why are they still insulting and demeaning Hillary Clinton and her supporters? Maybe because it isn't over? Or maybe because they are just as worthless as human beings as the conservatives they used to scorn?

[scottreads]

Re our choices in November, I think perspective about Obama is as important as perspective about Clinton. Let's keep in mind that the last administration launched a bloody endless war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions, and has pursued that lovely GOP strategy of hand-outs to rich people and starving the govt. of funds to help anyone else. And McCain wants to continue that by doubling down and maybe launching new wars against Iran and against Hamas on Gaza. Obama on his worst day is better than that, and I'm not going to enable more blood, death, and misery by pulling the lever for McSame. I understand the hard feelings over recent events, and I didn't like the Edwards endorsement either (Obama cares about poverty? since when?), but I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face, especially since the lives of millions hang on that choice.

[Doghouse Riley]

I'll say it again: Elizabeth Edwards excoriates our juvenile Press in the pages of the Times; her husband primps and joins forces with Russert and Williams to gang-tackle a woman because she was running a far superior campaign to his own.

[Tom K]

"Sweetie", "Breck Girl", "private-jet" references (read, limousine liberal). If I were keeping track, this would be what -- the 20th time, maybe?; no, that's too low -- that I've seen the desire to support HRC drive traditional liberals to adopt Republican positions or terminology. It's really quite amazing.

Tom, if you want to call Edwards and/or Obama effete, or unmanly, or unfit to wear the pants(suit) on the D ticket, or whatever it is of that nature that you are getting at, just do it. As it is, you seem like a punch pulling Ann Coulter. It doesn't suit you at all, 1) because you usually operate at a more decorous level than AC, and 2) once you are down on her level, punch-pulling just looks confused, since it is by then too late to look gracious.

[Tom K]

I should add, please don't take my comment as a defense of Edwards, who I consider a pandering slickster and whose timing here qualifies him as a "Profile in Courage" nominee in the "Not Really" awards I'm planning on holding when the election is done.

[Tom W.]

TK - you may have missed Obama's actual "Sweetie" moment yesterday, when he used that diminutive on a female television reporter who asking him questions. My use of the term is ironic, given that Obama would never call another man "sweetie."

I've never called Edwards Breck Girl, nor would I - it's patently offensive.

Now, the image of jumping in your Lear to endorse a candidate after the voting in the country's poorest state has finished - ostensibly to continue the anti-poverty campaign with such an endorsement - well, call it what you will. It's quite an image.

[Tom K]

I did miss Obama's "sweetie" moment. So I'll pass on that. I didn't charge you with "Breck Girl" -- by then I was referring to HRC supporters more broadly -- but I'll 'fess up that, if it read that way, it was wrong.

On the last point -- "call it what you will" -- I don't think any phrase sums up the syndrome you're desrcribing any better than "limousine liberal". This phenomenon has irritated many conservatives for decades (without your apparent notice). That your eyes are opened to it now, in the context of the HRC campaign, illustrates my point about HRC supporters & Republican viewpoints.

BTW, how does Hillary get to the povery events she attends?

[Slappy]

The Clintons could not deliver the White House a third time around. Boo-fucking-hoo. I doubt any of you Obama-bashers were as upset when Clinton lost a long-standing Democratic run Congress as you are about losing your preferred choice of nominee. And sit out the election Rain if you feel you must. Have a drink and dream of your perfect little world where everything goes your way.

The pedestal you placed the Clintons on has crumbled and many of you can't handle the loss. Not being able to come to grips that YOUR choice is not the winning choice is driving many of you insane. It is over. Edwards' support is the final nail in the coffin. Denial. Anger. Acceptance. You, your party, and your country will be better for it. Or you can deal with fantasies of 3rd parties and convention battles and crusade against Obama in a fashion that would make Karl Rove blush with embarrassment and help elect McCain.

At this point, the longer Clinton stays in this process the more damage she will be doing to her party and the Clinton legacy. Much like Nader who will be remembered as a spoiler and not a champion of consumer's rights. Edwards' delegates will overwhelmingly vote Obama. Only denial would prevent someone from seeing that this race is over. At this point she should drop out. Period. I'd be saying the same were it reversed. Maybe it is better to make a clean cut and put this race behind us and have Edwards as VP. The indignity Clintons would suffer as only being the VP would be too much for most of you to handle. The most important female Democrat of the 20th, 21st and probably the 22nd century taking direction from someone else. The horror. Edwards spared you the shame. Rejoice I say.

Get over yourselves. Even if your political intuition is far superior to everyone else.

Yeah yeah I know. Fuck me. Blah blah blah. Obama = bad. Clinton = good. Blah blah blah. Obama = bad. Clinton = good. Yawn. Lets start the Clinton '12 campaign early why dont we. For the sake of humanity we must.

Among the gasbags indeed.

[Slappy]

Another important issue to bash Obama with: means of transportation. Almost forgot that one.

[Tom W.]

Slappy, your vitriol argues against your suggestion that you'd "be saying the same were it reversed."

Further, the angry "get out or go away, you fools!" argument is doing more damage to the party than Hillary Clinton ever could. If you were making a real party-first plea, you wouldn't put it that way...

[HenryFTP]

Slappy:

The scales have fallen from my eyes now. How could I have missed Edwards' hundreds of delegates putting Obama over the top? Or indeed, that Edwards would make a terrific VP candidate, as he will carry his home state of North Carolina for the ticket, just as he did in 2004?

It would appear that some Obama supporters feel that they have not insulted Clinton supporters enough. When we're really cowed and intimidated (and presumably reprogrammed), we'll be good and ready to support the Presumptive Nominee with enthusiasm.

[scottreads]

It really never ceases to amaze me how Obamafans (even when they're unaware of it) prove the point being discussed her again and again. Tom makes a simple point about Clinton demonstrating that she has remarkably resilient support in the face of gasbags demanding her ouster and about how interesting that is. Instead of confronting that or at least acknowledging that Clinton has had very durable support (which Obama might want in the fall), 'ol Slappy doubles down with more calls for the monster to step aside for the good of humanity, apple pie, etc. And the defensive, prickly snarkiness on display is pretty revealing too. Yeah, I totally believe that you'd be saying exactly the same thing if the situation were reversed. Um, not so much.

[Ralph]

Hey gang! Let's all repeat the right wing attacking points against our fellow Dems! Let's all vow to not vote for the Dem candidate because our candidate didn't win! Let's all act like morons. Congrats Tom, you have fanned the flames of idiotic Democratic debate about this primary. Hillary Clinton is not the feminist candidate any more than Obama is the black-power candidate. Crying about being a victim will not win you respect - being right on the issues will. So far, I have not heard any of you fools talk about the real issues. Have fun with John McCain. I'm sure you'll all have plenty to discuss then - after it's too late. Man, what jerks.

[scottreads]

"Sore winners" isn't quite enough to describe the Obamafan trollers here, but it'll do.

[Judith]

Ralph - you mean like when the GOP calls Democrats morons and jerks? Those talking points?

[HenryFTP]

With respect, Ralph, I can only speak for myself, but I suspect I also speak for a number of others similarly situated. At the outset of this campaign I was an Obama supporter, principally because I felt his opposition to the Iraq disaster was more foursquare than was Hillary's. I was also frankly rather skeptical about Hillary's positions on domestic issues as well -- she is my Senator after all, and she and Chuck Schumer are often seen in some less-than-savoury Wall Street plutocrat company.

But I have been paying attention to the issues, and not the hype and political "inside baseball", as difficult as that can be nowadays, and Hillary sold me as being the more reliable candidate to implement an agenda of real change in Washington -- her command of the issues won me, a skeptic, over. At the same time Obama left me wondering about his real commitment to make things happen as opposed to, well, getting himself elected. And if you sell yourself, as John Kerry did in 2004, on the basis that you're the candidate more likely to beat the Republicans in the fall, well you'd better deliver. And he hasn't.

He can still "close the deal" with me and probably a lot of the other "jerks" here. We're not stupid -- most of us can see that the corporate media has fanned the flames of this phony "schism" in the Party through tried-and-true tactics of smear, misstatement, and amplification of comments by peripheral players, etc. But Hillary could drop out of the campaign in the next five minutes and Obama would still have a lot of work to do to mobilize her former supporters. Again, I can only speak for myself, but he placed doubts in my mind, no one else.

[Tom W.]

Ralph, it's hardly my fault this is ending so badly - frankly, walking through the delicate end-game here demands a sure hand on the political tiller, not someone who just plays to his own base (so far).

I'm not impressed at the tone or the tactics - they're amateurish. And I'm not bullish (so far) about the "great healing" that needs to come.

What you miss is that Hillary is not your run-of-the-mill second place finisher for two major reasons: for one, she too, was a first-ever candidate with a wounded and sensitive based that's ready to walk, and two, she's barely in second place (despite the media hullabaloo). No second place finisher (if it is finished - and no human being alive will bully or f-bomb me out of making my own damned judgment) has ever been so close to the apparent winner in the modern primary era. Ever.

Finally, the outpouring of sexism in this campaign is as historic as the candidates themselves, an ugly chapter in American political history. The winner has to acknowledge that.

You guys might try actually dealing in these realities, instead of pretending that half the people who have voted so far will simply melt away and back a candidate they thought of as second-best.

[Ralph]

Tom, if you really cared about beating McCain than you wouldn't capitalize on the bitterness of those who support the candidates. Most people here seem to think that getting upset at what an Obama supporter says justifies them not voting for Obama in the general election. And I see the same idiocy on Daily Kos and Atrios by those rabid Obama supporters who say the same things about Hillary. Frankly, a pox on both houses. I'm sorry that you cannot rise above all this sound and fury. You should be part of the solution, as I thought for a moment you were. But, alas, your passion for Hillary's campaign has allowed you to use the same rhetoric as the right. I was listening to a lame conservative talk show last night that made a huge deal out of Obama's 'sweetie' remark. Ya think they woulda cared if McCain or Hillary had used that term? Nah. One can say the same about pro-Obama bloggers jumping on things that Hillary might say during the campaign. So what? I'd love to read some intelligent analysis about the race, but all I get is critiques about the big bad Obama supporters being sore winners. Why don't you turn things around and tell me how Hillary supporters would behave if the roles were reversed and she had Obama's number of delegates and super-delegates at this point? Can't you see that you are just feeding this stupidity?

[Ralph]

Hillary Clinton is a second term Senator and has come very close to winning the Democratic nomination. And all you folks seem to think she'd have a better shot at beating McCain than Obama. So it seems that Hillary has proven to be much stronger than those sexist attacks you claim are hurting her campaign. Please explain why you folks keep blaming sexism for almost every problem she has?

[scottreads]

Ralph:

I can say with 100% confidence that I would NEVER tell an African American candidate with historic levels of support in the party (in your scenario, 47% instead of 49%) that it was his obligation to pack it in before Hillary had actually won the nomination. Given the unprecedented closeness of the race and the hopes and expectations generated by these two, it would be grossly insensitive and politically tone-deaf to do that. So please don't project your own ungracious behavior onto others.

Re the misogyny issue that you blithely dismiss, sure, all Hillary's problems in this race aren't attributable to that (Mark Penn and your inevitability-let's-ignore-the-caucuses strategy, I'm looking at you). But I can't help noticing that HRC in historical terms has run the closest primary race ever, on either side, yet faces an avalanche of calls to quit that none of her male predecessors ever have. And that those calls, some of them by our elected respresentatives, contain memes like "Hillary is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, coming out of the bath to kill you" or "Hillary is your psycho ex girlfriend." That bothers me, and as long as it happens I'm going to call BS. That it doesn't bother you is your problem, not mine.

[Ralph]

Ungracious behavior? Have I called for her to withdraw? Do you know anything about what I have said in the past? Stop assuming things. I didn't blithely dismiss the misogyny issue. I simply said that Hillary has proven that she's a very strong candidate DESPITE all the crap you point out. YES it bothers me, but I don't think it has prevented her from being a successful politician. Can you get that? Or will you respond by accusing me of things I never said (that seems to be a common practice here for some reason).

[scottreads]

Dude, you accused the rest of us of blaming sexism for almost all Hillary's problems and "crying" about being the victim. You also called us fools, jerks, and morons. I didn't say that, you did, so deny your ungraciousness all you want. We talk a lot about the misogyny that HRC faces because we feel it's a big deal, so to have you come in and say "well, she's shown she can overcome it, so quit 'crying' about it" is offensive.

[Tom K]

BHO supporters think HRC is so blinded by her sense of entitlement that they will have to get a restraining order to keep her from setting up in the Oval Office after he is elected.

HRC supporters think BHO is so arrogant (a quality often projected to mask insecurity) that he expects to wipe her out of the race like a spec of dust from his shoulder, without actually reaching the threshold required to secure the nomination.

And, of course, they're both right.

[Ralph]

Don't assume that you would NEVER tell any other candidate in Hillary's position that they should pack it in. You don't know, so don't claim that you do. It's dishonest. And yes, you are right. Those of you who will not vote for Obama because you support Hillary are fools, jerks and morons. (Some of you might even be agent provocateurs trying to stir up trouble in the general election for all I know.) Yes misogyny sucks. I don't think most liberals and Democrats are sexist. Do some of them say thoughtless things. Yes. And yes, these media critics and journalists who employ sexist language to call for her to withdraw are also fools, jerks and morons. But - hold on, here it comes - that still won't change the fact that she may not be the nominee. The problem I have is this idea that if it were not for the sexist attitude of some people, she'd have sewn up the nomination. And that's crap. If you are gonna blame someone for that, blame the voters who pulled the lever for Obama during the primary. Blame the super delegates who support Obama. Can they all be sexist? Were there other reasons why they supported Obama? Simple minded analysis ignores other important issues. I have trouble with anyone who primarily supports a candidate because they have African heritage, or because they are female. Last time I checked Condi Rice was still an incompetent right-wing criminal. Does that mean those Republicans who want her on the ticket are not sexist or racist?

[Susie]

This isn't Obama's first 'sweetie' moment. He calls women 'sweetie' on the trail, as Maureen Dowd noted some time ago. Is it the biggest issue ever? No. But it would get him into serious trouble in most workplaces these days, and I can only imagine the blogger reaction if McCain used the term.

[Judith]

"What the Party leadership did to rig it as well, is beyond belief. Maybe they have always been doing it, and I never paid enough attention to notice it in previous primaries."

Yeah, that is what is bothering me too - but not about the leadership as much as the unhinged and vicious boy bands out there posting anonymously. I saw it with the filth directed at women before, but now it is really across the board. Was it always that way and I didnt notice it unlees it was extreme?

[Tom K]

Anyone see HRC last night, asked to state clearly that she would support BHO if he won?

She said that, if she didn't get the nomination, *she would tell anyone who asked her that they should absolutely, without hesitation, vote for Senator McCain . . . I mean, Obama.* I'm paraphrasing because I don't recall her exact words, and I don't recall who was interviewing her either, but that was the gist of it. I'm sure she meant what she said; the only question is, did she mean the original or the corrected version?

[JoeCHI]

I am a contributing, volunteering Hillary supporter who will DEFINITELY vote for McCain in the fall against Obama.

That said, being a devoted "Absolutely Fabulous" fan, I've been calling both men and women "sweetie" ever since the series aired in the mid-90's.

So, I'll give Obama a pass here.

;)

[Ralph]

I am a contributing, volunteering Hillary supporter who will DEFINITELY vote for McCain in the fall against Obama.

What'd I say about agent provocateurs? So, Mr. JoeCHI, I guess you just love what 8 years of Bush/Cheney has done for America. Well, you'll get more of that with McCain. Congrats!

[CoolSchool]

Gosh what a brew ha ha. HRC should stay in the race until the end. She is going to lose but I have no problem with her continuing to provide her views on the issues. We Democrats need to understand that our Party contains varying perspectives on important issues and it is healthy to discuss them in the crucible of a fierce campaign. That is what a nomination battle is all about.
I don't believe for a minute her staying in the race is hurting Obama. If it is we are in trouble come November. Does anybody really believe that when HRC discusses the issues or describes why she would be a better President then Obama that this is going to take potential November voters away from Obama? I hope not.
And what a surprise, a woman runs for President and cads who oppose her use sexist agruments against her. And, in another suprise, an African American runs for President and cads who oppose him use racist agruments against him. Unfortunately there are plenty of jerks, morons, (or whatever nom d'attack you prefer) on each side and they have flung plenty of crap. Let's just all do like the Beatles advisied and come together right now and make sure the lobbyist candidate McShame doesn't give us four more years or misery in Iraq and everywhere else.

[Judith]

JoeCHI -

one day my sister replied cheerfully to her boss "okay, sweetie". He turned around and glared at her and said" "make that Mister Sweetie!".

[Susie]

I tend to associate ‘sweetie’ with the Dabney Coleman character in ‘Tootsie’ who gets told off by Dustin Hoffman in drag.

"What'd I say about agent provocateurs? So, Mr. JoeCHI, I guess you just love what 8 years of Bush/Cheney has done for America. Well, you'll get more of that with McCain. Congrats!"

I’ll vote the Democratic ticket as I always have, but McCain is not Pol Pot, and all this Western-civilization-will-collapse-if–McCain-is-elected is nonsense. He’s a decent man who can only do so much sucking up, which is why large swathes of his own party hate his guts. His age concerns me, but those Democratic bloggers making jokes about how old and sick and ugly he is are a real turnoff.

[Ralph]

For those who think age should not be a factor in the race don't remember Reagan. And it just got worse in the second term. That was truly scary.

[SweetSue]

If Hillary is the Village Approved party hack and Obama is the shiny and new different kind of politics guy, how come all the old Party overlords (and Presidential losers) are backing him?
Maybe Hillary is the one who represents real change as well as the FDR style policies keeping the middle class afloat.
And it won't be the horrible sexism of Obama's supporters alone that will prevent me from voting for him if-God forbid-he's the Democratic nominee. Watching my party disenfranchise its own good faith voters and work to actively rig the process has been beyond painful.
Boys, you can't unring the bell. You told me loud and clear that I and my vote isn't needed or wanted in the "new" Democratic Party.
Message received.
As for Iraq, watching how ineffectual Pelosi and the Democratic Congress have been since elected, I don't believe that Obama will end it. Hillary is more believable precisely because she warns that it will be a process and will take time.

[Slappy]

Tom W: I would be saying the same were it in reverse. I would have no problem with Clinton with Prez. I've said that from the start. But its over. Its over. Continuing this nonsense is certainly damaging. It appears to me most here would rather win the nomination than win the presidency. Common sense tells you its over. Look how the super delegates are falling. Damn it, move on!

[jj]

Slappy, if it were just a contest like a sporting event, then saying, "It's over," might mean something. But there is the actual presidency to think of after.

Let's remember that saying, "It's over," prematurely at the 2000 election, got us where we are now.

[Susie]

"Look how the super delegates are falling. Damn it, move on!"

The supers themselves could have ended this long ago. They haven’t because Clinton has this pesky habit of winning primaries and, bizarrely, refuses to step aside for the coronation of Golden Boy, in spite of calls for her to get out that date back to January.

Also, half the Democratic Party really, really likes her......

[lillianjane]

I clicked on the link to Aravosis and I thought it was satire at first. I can't believe a fairly well-known person (according to other blogs) would sign his name to that. It seemed like it should be cloaked in anonymity. He sounds like a child throwing a tantrum.

[damitajo1]

I am a Clinton supporter, and I am unmoved by the “how could you vote McCain, when he will eat the heads off of infants” scare-tactics. I have many PROGRESSIVE reasons for not supporting the Democrat/Obama. First of all, the party rushed to condemn loyal and older Dems. Obama's entire campaign was built around the notion that older Dems were "stuck in the past," " more of the same," "politics as usual." No wonder he polls horribly among older voters. He also offers very little in terms of substance. He loses ALL poor voters, except for blacks. People always forget that Latinos voted for Clinton. This is because they want to portray poor whites as racist to dismiss their votes. Which brings me to an enormous problem. Obama and his supporters - in the media, on the internet, and among the party leadership and his campaign staff -- have played the race card in a very destructive fashion. They have made very innocent statements look like racism. They basically portrayed the Clintons as the KKK. They turned every criticism of Obama into a lynching. As an African-American, I am outraged by this cynical display. All it does is cheapen the civil rights movement, by making race a subject of manipulation, not justice. Obama has done nothing to advance civil rights. His community organizing consisted of registering black people to vote for him. How noble! Yet, veteran civil rights activists who support Clinton have been forced to defend their actions and their commitment to equality. And the party started bashing dissent and critique. For most of the Obama supporters, critique was viewed as racism or divisiveness or as an unfair attack. And many in the black community has rigidly policed and coddled Obama and have castigated veteran civil rights activists for merely questioning him. Is this change? If so - keep it! Furthermore, while the party has been willing to invent or beat down racism against Obama, it has sat back and condoned and even engaged in sexist treatment of Clinton. The demands that she get out of the race were sickening - and they started right after Iowa. Finally, although I don’t really care about Florida or Michigan at this point, the callousness of party members towards voters in the states (“rules are rules,” “stop whining”...) is just wrong. Regardless of what the candidates agreed to, we should never embrace rules that effectively negate votes.

So, I will not vote for Obama, and I am not blowing off steam “now” but will “change my mind in November.” I made this decision around Super Tuesday. I am not just mad about my candidate losing and need to stop “being a sore loser.” On the contrary, I have voted my whole life for Dems, most often, for a candidate I originally did not support. During past primaries I supported Bradley, Dean, and Jesse Jackson (twice). Neither won – but I still proudly voted for the nominee. I understand that McCain is a conservative, but he does not pretend to be a liberal like the Democrats. Because I disapprove of liberal hypocrisy, I refuse to vote for Obama. Good luck in November guys! This black man will be voting for Sen. McCain.

[Peg]

"Please explain why you folks keep blaming sexism for almost every problem she has?"

The sexism has not hurt Hillary; but going unchallenged, it has hurt the Democratic Party and the country.

[Allienne Goddard]

You all make me very sad. But then I remember that nutjobs like us who read and post on blogs are the exception, not the rule. In the end, McCain will be revealed as the angry old white man who sings about bombing Iran and swears at his colleagues while flip-flopping on all issues of principle and staffing his campaign with lobbyists. I have to believe that a solid majority will not choose this dork to rule the world's hyperpower. It is my own type of blindness.

P.S. Can't we all get along?