we're going to need a bigger clothespin.

exactly how far is that from "well, you might as well relax and enjoy it?"

the mad negotiations skillz that Obama is supposed to have that made him so great in the Illinois Senate?

And here I thought once the primary was over, we were all gonna have make up sex and all that stuff (or did I miss the make-up sex?)!

He's really, REALLY bad when it comes to women, isn't he?

And getting Hillary supporters, esp'ly women, on board is not a priority goal for him?

Does the word "arrogant" have an application here?

So for me that's a 90% discount from reliable right there.

Buried down in the next-to-last graf:

Everyone involved agreed that most of the meeting was cordial, and that there is unanimity on the need to work hard to elect Obama.

Which sounds a whole lot less inflammatory. Tone and context are everything, and very little of either is present in this report.

Tapper; not my favorite for accuracy and fairness. If these women, none of whom are shy, have something to say for the record they'll be able to do that on their own, through many vehicles and not just Jake Tapper. I believe I'll wait for confirmation about both the words and the responses before I let my blood pressure increase.

Given that Cass Sunstein is reportedly an advisor to Obama, I hope Obama isn't expecting this woman to just assume that he's going to appint Supreme Court justices that will protect Roe.

Obama talks about reproductive rights like he does everything else, so I see no reason to believe he'd fight any harder to protect them than he has the Fourth Amendment. While he's got a pro-choice voting record, he's never actually done anything I'm aware of to actively protect reproductive rights or women's rights.

Sorry.

The entire narrative of telling women to "fall in line" is damaging to Obama and the Democrats. If it's not true, then they need to come out and say that.

If it is true, then Obama and the DNC need to pull their heads out of their asses. Women - at least Democratic women - wouldn't be voting against Obama because they think McCain is better on women's issues. They'd be voting against Obama because they're tired of the half-assed job Democrats do defending and advocating women's rights because and of having their votes taken for granted because, hey, Democrats might be shitty, but they aren't as shitty as the GOP. It would be about punishing the Democrats in hopes it will get them to do a better job, not because McCain would be awesome for women. These kinds of stories, if undisputed, only feed the idea that a strong message needs to be sent to the Democratic Party that women have choices.

and is only now adding women, but not to his inner circle-- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/060...

If you read the rest of the story, you'll see this:

"Obama then said[,] two sources at the meeting said[,] that he'd held his tongue many times during the campaign against Clinton in the interest of party unity and sensitivity. Clinton and her allies had suggested he was a Muslim, had said he wasn't qualified to be president."

(My emphasis)

It seems he either believes his own campaign's smear (or did I miss something? I never saw Clinton or her people suggest he's a Muslim), or he's still fighting the last war in spite of his protestations.

The more I reflect on it, the more puzzled I am by this incident, if the report is accurate. Every time I think I have an idea of what kind of person Obama is, something happens to overturn it.

unless anyone goes on the record, I would just disregard it. Seems to be a case of let's you and him fight

while I have better things to do than defend The Precious, Tapper's shown himself to be insupportable more times than I can count. But that acronym's new to me, so an explanation would be nice.

Sarah

YOMV here.

Do try and keep up. With texting the language as we know it is doomed. In a few short years it will all be acronyms and emoticons; Those who cling bitterly to the old vocabulary and grammar will be increasingly shunted aside and ignored.

McLuhan, to the nth degree.

Now, aren't you glad you asked? I know how I feel about it all.

:-(

or is it

;-O

Hell, I can't keep them straight; probably I should just

:-X

cut me a little slack maybe I can read / write comments (one tomcat per shoulder creates a difficulty).

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Why don't I just wait until someone at Shakesville posts and then all I have to write is "ditto"?

So, if we can assume that Tapper has reported Clarke's comments correctly, and Clarke has reported Obama's comments correctly, then where does that leave us?

With a candidate who's STILL Not Quite Getting It. Here's what he's not getting: the women who are angry about the way that Clinton was treated during the campaign, and about Obama's silence -- what one British writer aptly termed the "malign acceptance" of misogyny -- are not under any illusions that John McCain is better on women's issues than Obama would be. The relative positions of the parties is beside the point. What they don't want to hear is what Obama's saying here: I don't have to deal with your silly issues, which I don't consider to be important or central, because where else are you going to go?

I've been paying attention to the people who are fed up with that line, and I can say one thing: that's just not going to work anymore. They've heard this for decades now, and nothing gets any better, because the party knows they have nowhere else to go. It's not about McCain being some champion for women's rights; they know he's not. What it *is* about is Obama, and the Democratic Party, and the fact that Obama is running to be President on the ticket of the Democratic Party, which is ostensibly supposed to champion women's rights. But this year, that was revealed to be an expedient lie. And the people who are fed up with the lies want to give the Party a wakeup call, and to let the party -- and Obama -- know that they expect action, not just promises and lies.

Because really, what has the Democratic Party done for women lately? It hasn't stood firm on Roe; instead, it's allowed our reproductive rights to be chipped away so far that even contraception is threatened now. Roe has had only one use for the Democratic Party in the past 25 or so years -- as a club to beat women with every four years. Because they have nowhere else to go, right?

Fair pay? Health care? Domestic violence? Where has the Party been on those issues?

In a way, it doesn't matter what Obama has said and whether Tapper got it right or not. Because it's not his words I'm interested in. They are a waste of my time even if he's telling me what I want to hear.

I'm more interested in what Obama and the DNC have done to try to reassure women and what they've done is jack shit.

BTW, the photo zuzu uses at Shakesville - fabulous.

Hard drive crashed on new computer (along with my Emily's List post, argh!). Old computer has sticky keys. Sorry.