The Obsession Continues

Michael Tomasky is a liberal Democrat, a talented writer and reporter, and a long-time commentator from the progressive viewpoint. He does not generally come across as a snarling and angry voice of the male left. Indeed, he often provides real insight to the political process and the evolution of what passes for liberalism in this country. Yet even this erudite voice of the liberal Guardian website could not hold it back. In attacking Senator Hillary Clinton's speech last night after the last primaries of this long primary season, Tomasky let loose.

Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I've heard in a long time. And I've left out some adjectives, just to be polite.

I'll dwell  on "emasculating," because it's so revealing - and so as not to pick on Tomasky alone, let me suggest it's emblematic of the media's nearly formal campaign to drub Senator Clinton from the race. I'm sure Tomasky didn't literally mean that Clinton's speech held the power to "deprive of masculine vigor or spirit" or "render effeminate" or "vitiate by unmanly softness" the rather stirring campaign of his own favored Barack Obama. He didn't really mean that Hillary's speech could actually "geld" or "castrate" or rob Obama of his "virile or procreative power."

But Tomasky was suggesting that Hillary Clinton still holds some power that can weaken Barack Obama; he chose a gender-packed adverb with a restless rustle across his keyboard in do so, and thereby echoed the historic sex-tinged media mugging of Senator Clinton during this long season. The day that Senator Obama made history by becoming the de facto nominee of a great party (they brought the tablets down from Mount St. Russert, so it's official), an African-American nominee just 44 years after the Voting Rights Act, his supposed acolytes in the media - and much of the liberal blogosphere - allowed their Hillary obsession to cloud their judgment and still their better voices.

And they blamed Clinton for that as well! "Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton," wrote Tomasky and myriad other pens scratched a similar theme, as if those very pens were somehow controlled by the infamous Clintonian Mind Meld. "She's Still Here!" crowed the headline over right-wing New York Times sex columnist Maureen Dowd's latest Hillary-basher, which also carried the charge that the greatest female politician in American history was seeking to "emasculate" her male foe, a fellow Senator. Should Obama stoop to choosing Mrs. Clinton and her 18 millions votes and swing state mojo as his vice president, Dowd suggested he'd look as "hen-pecked" as poor old Walter Mondale did when he tabbed Gerry Ferraro.

Oh, the hand-wring was spectacular - and it was telling. How much of the Obama media magic springs from an obsession with Bill and Hillary Clinton? On his biggest night, it was wall-to-wall Hillary. And don't blame her. As big-time Obama backer Al Giordano wrote on The Field last night, her speech was unexceptional: "I think that Senator Clinton’s speech was fine." No candidate edged by a nose at the wire after 18 months of slogging around a muddy track for the world's biggest political prize would simply drop an ad hoc concession on her donors and followers and friends.

I'd caution the anti-Clinton obsessives to take a real look at Barack Obama, to assess their public voices, to move on from an unhealthy hatred that must undoubtedly impact in negative fashion on their own lives. Hillary Clinton will be just fine. Of course, she'll do the right thing by the Democratic Party - the real question is, will you?

Funny thing is, I was going to write about Obama and what lays ahead, and perhaps begin to talk about why I'll support him in the fall. But that'll have to wait. All that Clinton hatred got in the way - yet again.

UPDATE: And on the blogs? It's what Liss says.

UPDATE II: What a shocker: Clinton confers with congressional allies and will suspend and endorse during a party unity event she will host on Friday. Such an embarrassing 24 hours for the Clinton haters. Campbell Brown just humiliated Jeffrey Toobin over his now-infamous "deranged narcissism" remark of last night. How emasculating.

Comments

[tonva]

I think you are correct to focus on the term "emasculating" b/c it is so revealing. In spite of all the media hatred for HRC b/c of the "emasculating" behavior, for the life of me, I can't figure out what is so "emasculating" about her behavior or dialogue. But then, I am a woman.

[Ralph]

Tom, how long did it take you to find the most offensive reply to Clinton's speech? Oh, and Dowd -- wow she speaks for all us? Right? Why didn't you mention how much praise Obama lavished on Clinton?

Tom, you continue to be in denial. Denial about the most important fact: Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign. She was over-confident and never thought anyone was a big threat - certainly not Obama. She had no plan after super Tuesday. She blew it early on, and now you are like angry children. I have never seen such sore losers in my life! You pick out the most idiotic comments on Hillary as if millions of people agree. They don't!! An historic event ocurred last night, and yet, it's all about how Hillary was robbed of the nomination by some dirty tricks. No. Hillary didn't lose because of Dowd or Goodwin, or some other idiot.

[rick]

Tom

There is some over the top reaction, but I also found Clinton's speech a missed opportunity to act like a leader versus simply a politician. On the night when Obama got enough delegates to clinch the nomination she spent barely anytime congratulating him on HIS historic achievement. Contrast how she talked about him with his effusive praise of her a bit later.

And when the people there started chanting "DENVER, DENVER" instead of telling them "No, I ran a race, and I appreciate your passion more than I can say... but we need to unite and put that passion to work to defeat John McCain" she basked in it. The woman who told us she was ready to take that 3am call and to make the tough decisions as commander in chief showed herself unable to make the decision to concede gracefully, instead telling people to go to her site so she could see what they wanted.

Hillary ran a VERY good campaign. Ultimately, she lost. Not by much, but she lost and Obama won.

Hillary Clinton could have made a classic speech last night, one that cemented her position as a true leader. Instead, she chose to make it all about her interests and her ambitions. It annoyed me personally because we've had 2 terms of a president how promoted the cult of "you're with me or else" and I certainly don't want another president who thinks like that even if it's a Democrat.

So, her attitude was disappointing, but it's time to move on. I hope all of her supporters unite behind Obama and we collectively work to defeat McCain in the fall. If they decide to stay home because their candidate lost... fine. That would be sad, especially if it led to four more years of Republicans in the White House. But it will reveal their true colors - as supporters of Hillary versus as Democrats. For those of you who supported Clinton, ask yourself this - if the roles were reversed, what would you think of Obama supporters who were threatening to stay home in the fall versus vote for Hillary? Right. So do the right thing - work to elect a Democrat.

[Ralph]

How can you say she ran a VERY good campaign? She was supposed to win simply on her name recognition. That was a good strategy? Yes, she became very aggressive and caught up very close to Obama. But it was assumed four months ago that she would be the nominee. No question. No, she blew it, and now her supporters want to blame the fools who make sexist comments about her.

I have defended Hillary Clinton for months. But now, by refusing to congratulate Obama on his historic victory -- the gloves are off. She should have conceded gracefully. NOT because she's a woman, but because she has lost. Now, if she thinks she can go to the Convention and change hundreds of Super Delegates to abandon Obama, she's really gonna stir some anger.

[Dick Costolo]

I don't buy it. The reason all these journalists are writing what they're writing is the same reason that Hillary's biggest supporters are coming out against her today. Rangell and Hilary Rosen and others - Clinton chose to upstage obama on a night that should have been more about party unity and admitting that we now all know the path forward. Once again, as adam nagourney pointed out in the NYT, the clintons always find a way to make the story about them, even when it needs to be about somebody else. You're writing about Hillary Clinton today and not Obama precisely because Hillary continues to have a "pick me or i'll ruin it for everybody" approach to this election.

Rick, the commenter above, is dead on. She could have delivered one of the great speeches in american politics last night and delivered her supporters for obama....that was the night to do it. Not tomorrow, not in Denver, but now, when we all know who the nominee is.

[Tom K]

* . . .move on from an unhealthy hatred that must undoubtedly impact in negative fashion on their own lives.*

Hmmm. How thoughful of you, worrying about the mental health of folks who don't share your view of HRC. I suppose obsessive hostility toward any politican is bad for someone. But far more of your readers are in such danger re: their attitudes toward the President, and I don't recall you ever issuing them a warning.

BTW, I fully expect that HRC will be in the White House, and not as a visitor, sometime before the 2012 election. Possibly as VP at first (even money on which ticket), but more likely, she will be elected directly after securing the D nominee. It is hard to lay out the particulars of how that will happen -- but the general path is pretty clear, and August is a long way off.

[HenryFTP]

Barack Obama is not the nominee of the Democratic Party. I am not questioning the strong likelihood of his nomination -- but why is it so hard for people to get their heads around the fact that the expressed preference of superdelegates is in no way legally binds the supers? The angry demands that Clinton concede the nanosecond after Obama finally got sufficient superdelegate expressed preferences are bewildering.

No other Presidential candidate in history who has won nearly so many delegates has been subjected to this sort of abuse. What makes it all the worse is that much of the abuse comes from within the Democratic Party, which should understand only too well the need to persuade the 17-18 million voters who voted for Hillary to support Obama in the fall. You would think that after four months of trying the vilification tactic to sever Democratic supporters from Hillary, they would have seen it's not terribly effective -- just yesterday, Obama lost another primary to Hillary. At least try something new, folks.

In fairness to Tomasky, Tom, after last night's spittle-specked screed he calmed down a bit this morning and posted something halfway civil. He did note, however, that one of Obama's "strengths" were his "impressive Republican endorsers" -- somehow I don't think they're going to bring traditional Democrats streaming back into the fold.

[zeke]

Tom,

you write: "I'd caution the anti-Clinton obsessives to take a real look at Barack Obama, to assess their public voices, to move on from an unhealthy hatred that must undoubtedly impact in negative fashion on their own lives."

Given that your sphere of influence is primarily this blog, you might better have addressed your readers thusly: "I'd caution the anti-Obama obsessives to take a real look at Barack Obama, to assess his very real merits and achievements, and to move on from an unhealthy hatred that, if expresed as support for McCain, must undoubtedly impact in negative fashion the lives of their fellow Americans."

Your continued attempts to portray Senator Clinton as some kind of a victim do her and her supporters no credit. Disingenuousness, graceless behavior, and deficiencies as a campaign manager are all fair game, regardless of the candidate's gender.

The fact that some boneheaded media mavens occasionally cross the line into sexist banter does not erase the fact that Clinton has sabotaged her own campaign quite effectively.

Her speech last night evinced some of the same qualities that you have quite rightly criticized when they are exhibited by George W. Bush: egotism, stubborness, and a failure to acknowledge the reality-based world.

If you want to defend the speech on its merits, rather than merely decrying the speech's shriller critics, I'd like to read that post. In the meantime, your own obsessions are showing.

[Tom W.]

Ralph, it was hard to avoid bitter responses to Hillary's speech. They're everywhere - it's quite literally unbalanced. You should keep the gloves on and not join that mob.

Zeke - I like to think this blog has a following with a wide range of opinion, and certainly includes some virulent anti-Clinton folks. I will write about Obama and my support for him in time, but this obsession sidetracked me!

TK - You're cutting it a little fine there, casting a wider net then I have. It's not just people who don't share my opinion of HRC - it's the obsessives who go way over the top.

And i do think he's the nominee, btw, and will be a good one.

[Joel]

It is clear to me that Obama and his followers will not stop until they have completely destroyed Hillary, Bill and all memory of the good they have done for the United States and the Democratic Party. An old fashioned purge.

[Susie]

' Instead, she chose to make it all about her interests and her ambitions. It annoyed me personally because we've had 2 terms of a president how promoted the cult of "you're with me or else" and I certainly don't want another president who thinks like that even if it's a Democrat.'

She could have conceded and done the kow-tow, in other words. Why? She’d just spanked Mr. Inevitable in yet another primary and she’d been telling people all day she wasn’t going to concede. I also didn’t get any sense of ‘you’re with me or else’ from the speech.

(It’s interesting that the subject of Clinton’s ‘ambitions’ is a recurrent one – always in a negative sense. I imagine that Obama, who admits he’s been home with his kids ten days in the last year and apparently was a frequent no-show at the hearth even before the never-ending campaign, is a pretty ambitious fellow with ‘interests’ of his own. Which wouldn’t be surprising. Anyone going for the presidency has to be wicked ambitious. But only Hillary gets dinged for it.)

For those of you who supported Clinton, ask yourself this - if the roles were reversed, what would you think of Obama supporters who were threatening to stay home in the fall versus vote for Hillary? Right. So do the right thing - work to elect a Democrat.

If Clinton won, likely it wouldn’t have been an issue for long, as she would probably have offered him the VP spot already, and Clinton supporters in general, despite overheated rhetoric in some quarters, haven’t been as consistently snotty as the Obama fans. Obama stated publicly earlier in the campaign that he could get Clinton’s supporters but she couldn’t get his. Let him prove it now. I hope he does.

"The reason all these journalists are writing what they're writing is the same reason that Hillary's biggest supporters are coming out against her today."

Not quite to the point. It’s the language Dowd and Tomasky are using and the nasty undertone.

Nice of you to call Dowd a 'journalist.'

[bew]

Tom,

Nice post. Must have really touched a nerve, ie. spoke the truth, as the obamabots are out early and in force.

[rick]

Tom,

one man's obsession directs what you write? Interesting. Many of us were critical of her speech. I was... for the reasons outlined above. On a night when history was being made she ignored that fact and gave a speech that came off as self-centered. She played to her worse angels, not her better ones.

Tom K - the sky's blue in my world. Yours? Hillary has lost this nomination. There's no way that enough delegates could switch their preference to Hillary that would not lead to major disillusionment among many Democrats. Talk of legally binding is disingenuous as there's no law at play in this process. Come out of the cave, look at the world as it is. It's not too bad.

Obamabot? Hmm... so HRC's supporters are all rational and obama's are all robots... An interesting take. Insulting too. Hillary garnered a lot of support, but she lost this one.

Ralph - a very good campaign in that she garnered a LOT of support. 18m people voted for her. Tactically she made several mistakes and she went over the line for me when she argued that the Republican candidate was more qualified to be commander in chief than her Democratic rival. My high opinion of her at the start of this process has fallen a lot... but you simply cannot ignore that she has a lot of people who support her. Anyone who can garner that much support in the face of an excellent opponent has, by my definition, run a good campaign.

[Nell]

I can live with McCain being president for four years. It will definitely be a single term.

Because how long will we have to live with a party that will continue to use hate with women and sexist tactics and the backroom rigging par for Obama's campaign if they win. We show them their behavior was a winning strategy by voting for him.

As I've written before on other blogs, if I went to a church were the church goers jeered women and hated on people who supported a woman leader, you could say that their behavior doesn't represent their preacher or the god they worship. But it does when it is so pervasive.

If I walked into a business where the people behind the counter hated on women and jeered them, you could say it doesn't represent the CEO, but it does. Particularly when it fueled what he wanted and he didn't step out in leadership to stop it.

The tone of a candidate's campaign is the responsibility of the candidate.

I don't support a campaign fueled on pulling out the hatred on women. I can't vote for it or send my money to it or give my time to it.

[mojave_wolf]

I can't vote for McCain any more than I can vote for Obama, but otherwise, I completely agree with Nell's take on the situation--a McCain presidency would do less long term damage, imo, and this campaign's tactics by both the Obama campaign and the DNC cannot be validated.

Still hopeful that Hillary is NOT conceding Friday and this is another false report. Even if all of her political heavyweight supporters are hanging her out to dry, I still wish she would fight on in hopes of something changing (I don't remotely buy the view that these are similar candidates).

Apologies to Tom for not being able to say anything nice about Obama, I figure this season has been as trying for you liking both candidates as it has been for Avedon disliking them both, with regards to some of the comments you've gotten.

[ohmercy]

Oh, what a wonderful post.
wish I had discovered you a long time ago.

I am in the process of emasculating tom hayden as we speak!
LOL
just waiting for my comment to post so I can continue.

nasty little man.

As soon as I read the word emasculating I shouted out loud and the cat looked at me, annoyed.

The Hillary Hate is mind blowing and always has been to me. OK, years ago the neocons... what can you do but for the left to take over the narrative has been very difficult to watch.
The malice has at times been so ugly that I felt sick. Sometimes just numb.
Last night I started to cry because I was so relieved for her... but NO, they just are so addicted to it they can't let go. They are like pitbulls who can't let go while the smell of blood is still with them. They have been feeding on their hatred for so long that they are unable to do anything to stop it.

I saw Toobin and he had to hold on to his remark to keep face.
Gergin was annoying as hell too. I finally had to turn it off.
And will any of them come out and say OOPS?
no.

Olbermmann is still trying to ridicule, belittle and diminish her, get it all in now because he will have to back off once she is camppaigning for Obama.

This is why I have grown to admire, respect and genuinely like Hillary. She takes it, and keeps going.

Of course she is a Scorpio, so watch out!
LOL

Anyway, YES, it occurred to me earlier that what we have been witnessing all these months is this collective cultural fear of a strong feminine force.
I've been trying to nail this down for months. I knew there was something beyond the personal in this, something far beyond just an election, something archetypal, mythological story line. I couldn't get it, I'm sure there are many levels, may ways to look at it, like a great poem, or play, or myth, (or Dylan song) there are layers and meanings that change depending which facet you hold to the light.

This cultural fear of the feminine, this demonizing the feminine which we can see in many myths and some religious traditions we have seen played out in our own time.
Incredible.
The hero's journey vanquishing the dark feminine force.
YOWZA.
I think I might have to go back and get another grad degree and have this as my thesis.
LOL
I always thought the Princess Diana "myth" had that kind of archetypal feeling to it, except she was the good fairy princess, complete with being buried on an island.
I better stop or I'll rant.
HA>

well, excuse me, I need to go back to finish my castration of Tom Hayden.

[CognitiveDissonance]

The repulsive hatred of Hillary Clinton has been so virulent by Obama supporters that this fact alone would keep me from supporting him. Why would I want a leader who inspired that kind of passion in his supporters? Say what you will, but he did nothing to stop it. In fact, he encouraged it and profitted from it.

But I have a very long list of reasons I can't support Obama. And the Obots that scream about Roe v. Wade and McSame can't even faze me for one simple reason: I think Obama is the most unqualified, corrupt person to ever run for the position. And the democratic party in their zeal to coronate him stooped to the most undemocratic means possible - giving votes and delegates to him that were never cast for him, and turning a blind eye to what was happening at the caucuses. No, I won't endorse that. If I did, it would never stop. I don't want us to become the Republican Party and I won't enable it.

Whether I vote Green or actually hold my nose and vote for McCain, Obama will never get my vote. Quite frankly, he's never even bothered to ask for it.

[ML]

Why didn't she just concede immediately?

Instead of continuing to always assume the worst (and thereby continuing to drop salt on Clinton's supporter's wounds), look at it from another angle.

Up to 40% of HRC's supporter have claimed that they'd either stay home or vote for McCain. Obviously, at least half of them will come around until November naturally. But the others? They are currently very angry and believe Obama's presumptive nominee status is illegitimate. Part of them still believe that the supers can and will change their mind in Denver.
They are mad because they think the party has forced Clinton out of the race.
If she had conceded on that very same night (after winning yet another primary), it would only have fueled these beliefs and their anger even more.

Handling these people so that as many of them as possible finally rally around Obama takes time for tempers to cool down. Most Obama supporters acknowledge Clinton's experience and political savvy (and on such grounds they weren't willing to give her a pass on the RFK bandwagon). Could it just be possible that this same experience and savvy actually dictates that not conceding immediately is the best way to rally most people behind Obama?

Continuing to pile on HRC at this stage is simply counterproductive (more so since in the meantime there is a set date for the concession).

Of course, some ask, why should anyone care about these supporters?

Simple. 20% of 18 million is 3.6 million voters. From their most vocal representatives, they've been democrats for decades but feel currently wronged enough to jump ship. Considering that at least part of Obama's current voter totals are comprised of democrats-for-a-day who may defect in November, bringing most of these 3.6 million back behind Obama will help enormously in the GE.

McCain has already started to appeal to these same groups of voters. He knows he will need them in order to simply have a shot at winning. Obama may very well win if they stay home in November, but if they move to McCain?

Even then he may still pull it off. But are you willing to wager the GE on it?

So now that Obama has won and that there is a timeline AND a narrative to Clinton's endorsement, it is time to stop pouring salt on HRC's supporters' wounds. Even if you're not personally willing to consider she's actually doing what she thinks best to bring her most ardent supporters around, and are not ready to give her the benefit of the doubt on anything, I ask again:
Are you willing to wager the GE on it?

[Tom K]

Tom W:

*You're cutting it a little fine there, casting a wider net then I have.*

Aren't these contradictory concepts? Cutting too fine meaning too narrow a focus, and wide nets meaning too broad a focus?

Rick:

*Tom K - the sky's blue in my world. Yours?*

It's gray in my world, as a disaffected Republican with a strong aversion to HRC and no strong attachment to the remaining candidates. (Though I was a McCainiac in '00, I've got some reservations he has yet to address this time around).

You want to say Obama's the nominee? Be my guest. Free country, no skin off my nose, all of that. But the fact is, the nominee will be picked at the Convention, whatever you or I say, and August is a long way off. HRC's "suspension" of her campaign while reserving the right to put her name in contention is not a small thing. Again, August is a long way off . . .

[pebird]

A few forces at play as we attempt unification:

1. Split in Democratic party over a center-right vs. center direction.
2. Identity politics (both sides) resulting in huge personal and emotional investments that are difficult to shift.
3. Standard "politics" of candidates jockeying for position and leverage - not a criticism of anyone at all.

Since we all consider ourselves cultural critics of the highest regard that can parse language and understand the true meaning of someone's intention, a choice of phrase or particular word triggers a reaction.

There is no excuse for using the word "emasculating" in the context of the last few months. Especially in writing. Especially when one's candidate wins a tight race (and I am an Obama supporter).

It's kind of like saying: "show some graciousness, you asshole". Walk the walk you write. Tomasky should know better.

Anyway, there are strong emotions on all sides - at this point, to try to read in too much to the precise timing and words of the candidates is to not provide the respect they deserve.

Respect means to give the proper distance to another in order to provide them time. Lets do that, without trying to be a cable shouting head or self-proclaimed political expert.

[Susie]

"On a night when history was being made she ignored that fact and gave a speech that came off as self-centered."

History was being made - of a sort, I suppose. Clinton the loser spanked the Hope of the Nation in yet another primary and the supers finally did what they had to do and hauled Obama's butt over the finish line. Hallelujah.

[lillianjane]

"It is clear to me that Obama and his followers will not stop until they have completely destroyed Hillary, Bill and all memory of the good they have done for the United States and the Democratic Party. An old fashioned purge."

Yes-- apparently they are visiting every blog to make sure we are pledging allegiance to Obama as well, and jumping in to scold where necessary. Fortunately, they can't come in the voting booth.

[Ralph]

You know, Tom, I would have had much more respect for your obsession with sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton if you actually requested that your readers (and you could have led by example) write pointed letters to those sexist writers and the media companies that pay their salaries and complained about the sexist language. How many letter have you written to the New York Times to complain about Dowd?

Instead of seeing them as two issues, you and many of your readers tried to included Obama himself into this group of idiots who play the gender card. Nobody outside a small group of fanatics thinks that Hillary Clinton is a racist or that Barack Obama is sexist. But that didn't stop you from acting as if Hillary Clinton's delegate deficit was the result of some sexist conspiracy.

Obama struck a nerve. He out-organized Clinton, he raised more money. He tapped into the feelings of voters who want real change in Washington. The very fact that Clinton and McCain borrowed this idea shows how off-base they are. I mean "Yes We Will" was the best she could do? She couldn't come up with her own slogan? It's just bewildering to me that you folks can blame Obama and his supporters for the stupid things so-called journalists and right-wing websites say about Clinton.

If Obama had not been in the race, she would have beaten Edwards and you would all be gushing that, despite some sexist attacks, Hillary Clinton proved she can win on her own terms, etc. etc. But no, ever since she started losing primary after primary -- and the super-delegates started lining up for Obama -- you have been screaming about the sexist comments but doing nothing about it other than stretch whatever truth is out there to paint her as a victim.

2004 could have been her moment, but she wisely chose to skip running against a war president. But the Fates were not kind to her because the young progressive voters could not see Clinton as the same breath of fresh air as they did Obama.

It's sad and it's just not true. And again, I say that she didn't run a great campaign, because if she had, she would have won. The very fact that she didn't understand the change in the political climate proves her campaign dropped the ball early on, so all she could do was go on the attack later on in the primary.

So, we need to fight sexism. Rally against those who employ sexist writers and columnists, and then heal the wounds inside the party. Beating McCain is the mission, not bashing our nominee and his supporters. WE are the Democratic party, not Hillary Clinton. I would have happily voted for her for President. I would be happy to see her as the VP.

[Mike]

Well, Tom, I guess this is where we part ways. I've been a reader for a long time, but if you are now going to start shilling for Obama then, in the words of Obama himself, "that's enough".

I'm a Clinton Democrat. The good of the country and of the Democratic Party require, in my view, that Obama be defeated. He's a cynical opportunist with no discernible political principles other than pursuit of power for himself. He's been enjoying the support of MSM, the Dem Party elite (I mean, seriously, does Senator-for-Life Kennedy really believe that the ways of Washington need change?), and even some Republicans, who have little in common other than a desire to see Sen. Clinton, the strongest general election candidate this party could possibly put forward, defeated. That's the secret of his nomination. If that's who you want as the Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief, it's your prerogative. I'd rather see McCain take that oath of office.

[JB64]

What will they do when she is gone?

Will McCain be a fair substitute for their spittle-flecked hatred? Could he possibly engender as much negative passion and absolute bile for them as Clinton(s) can? I doubt it.

I never thought I'd see the day when a member of my own party would be so reviled and yes- hated. How can I support a nominee when I can't bring myself to forgive members of my own party? Hillary can do no good by any of these people regardless of what she does, so why bother trying to understand? Any statement that begins with "I was a Hillary supporter until..." is automatically disingenuous because if you were a supporter you would not be so easily strayed by manufactured outrage courtesy of a media that loathes Democrats, and a blogosphere that loathes Democrats that refuse to fall in line.

Hillary is a loyal Democrat who will genuflect for the nominee when the time is right for her. as far as I can see she certainly doesn't owe the Democratic party a damn thing. In fact, I'd say the opposite were true.