… stay in it.

Or drop the Veruca Salt act, show some sportsmanship, shake hands, and say “See you in 2012”.

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

here

I haven’t taken the Frenchdoc pledge because I’m not a Getty or a Rockefeller, but I’m on the verge of volunteering in Pennsylvania or North Carolina. What can I say, the more a bunch of men tell me not to do something or I’m being stupid, the more I want to do it. It’s a side effect of being born during all those excesses of the 60s and 70s.

I’m not sure which is needed more, but North Carolina is more tempting because 1) BDBlue is short for bluedevilblue (no, I won’t be going to West Virginia), and 2) BBQ.

As in grabbing a narrow lead primarily based on trumped up charges of racism?

new
Submitted by vastleft on Thu, 2008-03-27 17:05.

* reply

Is that really your contention? America is so full of guilt ridden liberals that you can upend the heavily favored super connected front runner by claiming racism? Jesus, you sound like Rush Limbough

.

Why, hello!

You’ve actually tried making a point rather than simply calling me a chancre sore. Maybe we’re getting somewhere.

“Narrow”? Subjective. But apparently enough that even Hillary admits she won’t close it. Sorry about that. Maybe all those states she said didn’t count, did.

“Trumped up charges of racism”? Well, only Hillary and the Holy Spirit she’s frequently in contact with [http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/334482.aspx] know the contents of her heart. But if she silently watches her husband dismiss South Carolina Democrats for having an unfortunate soft-spot for coloreds, then silently watches the chair of her campaign finance committee say her opponent is an affirmative-action charity case, she’ll have to let the trumps fall where they may.

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

Rootless: the idea that the Obama campaign (and supporters) have used charges of racism is an untrue claim made by republicans.

Ribonucleic: the Clinton campaign (and supporters) are racist.

Seriously, though, what is your objective? To persuade Clinton supporters to change sides? You’re doing a really piss-poor job. You just sound like assholes who want to harass people into voting for your candidate. It’s not working.

As others have commented here, one of my biggest objections to Obama are the tactics of his supporters.

Done… the PA primary can’t come soon enough!

Funny, the Clintons were framed as racists before those Klan-channeling incidents, in the run-up to the SC primary.

And how was that done?

By artfully twisting Bill’s “fairy tale” comment about Obama’s Iraq plan and his praise for LBJ’s civil rights.

I’ve said in another thread that I couldn’t care less whether people vote for Obama or not. I’m sure everyone will make their own considered decisions on how best to use their franchise - perfectly unmindful of what I, Kos, or any other awful people had to say.

But you’re in a public forum making claims about Hillary’s neatness and Obama’s vileness. If having those claims challenged is going to give you the vapors, you may not be ready for this Internet thing.

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

I’m surprised Troma hasn’t made that movie yet.

“But if she silently watches her husband dismiss South Carolina Democrats”

You mean silently stood by when her husband made the only valid comparison of Obama’s win(Obama won with 55%, Jackson won with 55%), in an attempt to spin the loss, then stood jaw-dropped, as her opponents then proceeded to zoom right past that valid comparison, and scream “race”.

And no one has yet been able to explain satisfactorily why what Ferraro said is any different than what John Kerry or Andrew Sullivan said.

Oborg Trolls, please get your talking points straight
new
Submitted by shystee on Thu, 2008-03-27 17:29.

Rootless: the idea that the Obama campaign (and supporters) have used charges of racism is an untrue claim made by republicans.

Oh please, try to use a little rational argument.
I was responding to

As in grabbing a narrow lead primarily based on trumped up charges of racism?

Note the “primarily” and the “trumped up”. If Obama’s lead is based primarily on “trumped up” charges of racism, the Democratic electorate must be a bunch of guilt ridden honkeys and angry negros - just as one would find them described on RedState.

And no one has yet been able to explain satisfactorily why what Ferraro said is any different than what John Kerry or Andrew Sullivan said.

And this is an argument made in bad faith.

A. She got the job because she’s a woman
B. It would be great if a woman got the job

If you can’t figure out the difference between A and B, find a community college and sign up for basic literacy.

By the way “stupid bitch” is a phrase that appears in quotes here as if someone else said it. I find it frequently in Lambert’s posts, but I assume he contents that some obama supporters are saying that although he can’t find time to cite.

You mean silently stood by when her husband made the only valid comparison of Obama’s win(Obama won with 55%, Jackson won with 55%), in an attempt to spin the loss, then stood jaw-dropped, as her opponents then proceeded to zoom right past that valid comparison, and scream “race”.

My god! What could have been more shocking to the author of the “sister souljah” moment than an accusation of dog whistling to bigots?

Amazing how the PREVIOUS primary in SC did not strike Bill Clinton as interesting and he had to reach back to the 1980s!

2004: Edwards won to 42% to Kerry’s 33% Sharpton 11%.

Wow! Black candidates do not automatically win in SC. Them negros must sometimes think fer themselves!!!

http://nuestravoice.com/?p=1668 — “… Howard Dean has been meeting with Latino DNC members asking them to make a call for Democratic unity to Latino voters. Dean must be concerned that a significant portion of the Latino Democratic vote, which favors Clinton over Obama by a two-to-one margin, will prove hard to deliver should Obama take the nomination. …”

Please don’t use Jesus or Rush’s name in vain on this site n/t
Submitted by vastleft on Thu, 2008-03-27 17:11.

Can’t you do better than that? You said that the Democratic electorate provided a lead to a massive underdog challenger “primarily” because of “trumped up” charges of racism. Sounds like a RedState argument to me, or maybe a Corner argument.

The anger and resentment here are too much for the slender vessel of Obama to contain. It must inevitably slop over onto the contemptible morons who voted for him.

In fairness, a small minority of Kos commenters can get carried away into the “stupid bitch” zone. They’re either ignored or gently encouraged to calm down. If that seems insufficient to the regulars here, that’s a judgment they’re entitled to make for themselves.

As for the Clinton’s vulnerability to the charges of racism: boo fucking hoo. If the hood fits, wear it.

And no: vastleft can’t do better than that. :-)

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

the media went on and on and on about Bradley effect and racist whites pushing Hillary over the top bec even then they were pissed Obama wasn’t rolling thru like in Iowa and they had already declared Hillary dead (for the first but not last time)?

Thank you for commenting, rootless. Welcome aboard. Help end the war in Iraq. Get your candidate to be the first to sign the Responsible Plan, and post what you did.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Thank you for your contribution to party unity.

And none of those is comparable to Jackson and Obama’s 55%.

Jackson won SC w/ 55%, but went on to lose. That is obviously the intention Clinton was trying to telegraph, but since the media says it’s racist(the same media that said Don Imus wasn’t, mind you) it must be true.

Wow! Black candidates do not automatically win in SC. Them negros must sometimes think fer themselves!!!

Now, you’re being the racist. Nothing I, nor Bill Clinton said, said anything about an alleged uniformity in African-American voting.

Ricky Ray Rector, Sista Souljah, Lani Guinier…

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

All three implied that Obama would get bonus points, being an African-American candidate in a democratic primary, since democrats tend to be forward thinking, tolerant, and open to change.

And trust me, as a woman, we know full well when “stupid bitch” is implied, even if it isn’t explicitly said.

But the real numbers in SC 2004 were much closer to 2008

Edwards 45
Kerry 30
Sharpton 10

Oddly enough, the percentage that went to the more progressive candidate in 2008 was equal to the number that went to Sharpton + Edwards over the establishment DLC candidate Kerry in 2004. Amazing!

And Jackson’s wins were in a caucus.

After being called a ratfucker, herpes-like, and a chancre sore by the unity-minded Democrats like yourself here, I’ve been re-evaulating the usefulness of the concept.

In the meantime: you’re welcome. I guess.

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

all this stuff is seen as insulting supporters and painting them with a broad brush — and candidates can either encourage it or not.

And many are personally insulted by tons of statements from both of them — even when they’re not supporters of the other candidate. Obama to a greater extent and Hillary to a lesser one have branded and sold themselves in ways that automatically insult and exclude some—all in attempts to attract others.

I’ve said before that i really wish there weren’t more than one “first” (which is a myth anyway) at a time—the candidates and the media made this “woman vs. black guy” among other labels, and people are seeing it thru that lens in some cases—especially when it comes to exclusion/inclusion/unity/identity.

Submitted by Aeryl on Thu, 2008-03-27 18:29.

* reply

That’s an interesting argument. In Sean Wilentz’s piece, which has been cited as Holy Writ here and on Talkleft and other places, statements by black people like Clymer and Brazile who were not affiliated with Obama’s campaign that they detected and were uncomfortable with racism implied in some clinton campaign statements were treated as fraudulent “race card” playing. Do you agree with him?

Jackson had already won states and been fighting for rights for decades and building coalitions to help people—unlike Sharpton, and he did not have the terrible rep Sharpton did—Sharpton was a joke among many and still is.

up?

for instance, when hillary cried in NH and it was a big deal, Jackson Jr turned it into “she never cried during Katrina” etc—and that was very early and way before SC and Bill.

/nasty/bad motives that has been cemented onto the Clintons for years by the media (only Rove is more Machiavellian according to “conventional wisdom”)— even before Hillary ran, and that it’s colored everything said about her?

What role does that play in all this insulting? Don’t most people presume bad motives immediately from her and her supporters?

Salon on GOP vs. Clinton— http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0…

“… many voters already see her in a negative light; there isn’t much work Republicans would have to do to put her there. … Clintons are so well defined, after so many years in the spotlight, that attacks based on more current affairs can slip right into the image voters already have of them. … “

are both blatantly in the tank for Obama, even if they hadn’t officially declared it, so of course they are going to try and spin it to Obama’s favor and to the Clinton’s detriment.

And I don’t deny your numbers, so stop denying mine. It would made absolutely no sense to say “Well between Edwards and Sharpton, they got 55% of the vote, and both went on to lose the nomination.” Comparisons of that nature only work one-to one, as in Jackson-Obama.

I’ve said in another thread that I couldn’t care less whether people vote for Obama or not.

Really? You don’t care that you may be contributing to those 28% of Clinton supporters who say they will vote for McGrandpa?

I’m not saying it’s justified, but like it or not people take things (like being called a racist) personally and are willing to take that sentiment into the voting booth.

BTW: The policy of Corrente has always been to urge people to vote for whoever the Dem candidate will be.

But you’re in a public forum making claims about Hillary’s neatness and Obama’s vileness.

Where am I, specifically, making claims about any candidate’s neatness or vileness? I’ve tried to stay out of the pie fight, myself. My only claim is to the vileness of the Oborg trolls, which you are demonstrating with every comment.

Typical troll behavior, by the way: attacking individual posters for things that other posters have written.

If having those claims challenged is going to give you the vapors, you may not be ready for this Internet thing.

I helped build this site and have been commenting and writing blog posts for over five years. Who the fuck are you?

* reply

That’s one of Wilentz’s lies. If you listen to what Jackson said he contrasts Hillary crying for her own sad plight and not for Katrina or the Iraq war or the mortgage meltdown. That is, his point is that Clinton feels emotional about herself, but not about the actual sufferings of the population. He’s calling her self-centered. Is he not allowed to do that?

I could point out that this reply has nothing to do with post it appears you are trying to reply to.

Clymer and Brazile
new
Submitted by Aeryl on Thu, 2008-03-27 19:06.

are both blatantly in the tank for Obama, even if they hadn’t officially declared it, so of course they are going to try and spin it to Obama’s favor and to the Clinton’s detriment.

So the rules here are when a woman says “I detect sexism” (even though other women disagree), we have to accept her point. But when a black person says “I detect racism” we can say that they are lying fraudulent race card players who are in the tank?

Sorry, that was to you and my post you highlighted above. I’m used to replies going directly underneath the post you reply to.

And the Limbauvian smear merchants have done their utmost to promote that. People snickered when Hillary talked about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” - but on that point she’s been proven right over and over again.

But Hillary has no one but herself to blame for the state of her campaign. She signed off on the 10 state strategy that blew up in her face. She squandered the enormous financial lead she started out with. She foolishly overreached in claiming foreign policy experience.

And even assuming [very generously, I think] that Ferraro was an unforeseeable eruption that left Hillary clutching her forehead in despair, she could have shown leadership and held a press conference the next day saying “While I thank Geraldine Ferraro for her great contributions to our party, her statements about Senator Obama do not reflect my beliefs or the beliefs of my campaign. So I have asked her to step down as my campaign finance chair…”

And you know what? I would have gained respect for her that day. And I’d have a much easier time now believing that Bill’s South Carolina statements were twisted out of context.

But no… [sigh] Hillary “triangulated” - or however you describe the arcane camapaign-fu that she practices. And whether that was the result of long-ingrained bad habit or piss-poor advice, it’s her name on the posters. She has to take responsibility.

Let us know if she ever manages it.

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

So the rules here are when a woman says “I detect sexism”

Well, I have seen plenty of women Obama supporters decry the gratuitous sexism Obama has used. And I don’t deny that racism could be read into Clinton’s remarks. But there are many other more innocent explanations possible as well, like with Ferraro, and considering the years of service the Clintons have put in attempting to create a better life for all Americans, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were not trying to be blatantly racist, considering once again, that this is a Democratic primary, and we Dems don’t really hold to racism. To go racist against Obama only hurts the Clintons, it would never help(witness how the accusations have hurt her).

So yes, it certainly could be read that Clinton was trying to liken Obama to Jackson’s “Black Candidate” rhetoric, but sorry, it just seems more likely that he was pointing out the similiarity in vote percentages, and that Jackson went on to lose. I mean, they are trying to win an election, if they wanted to just hand the nom to Obama, it would have been easier to just drop out.

And don’t forget, this constant cry of racism against an opponent, will not work in the GE. the media, loving McCain as they do, won’t bite, will paint Obama as a victim b/c of it, even if it is blatantly true(and it will be, repubs can’t help but play the race card, it’s all they have).

But almost everything about Obama’s campaign has shown me he is really not thinking ahead to the General(look at how he’s written Clinton’s supporters off), so I am not a bit surprised.

Oh please, try to use a little rational argument.

Please try to be a little less condescending and concerned.

Note the “primarily” and the “trumped up”. If Obama’s lead is based primarily on “trumped up” charges of racism, the Democratic electorate must be a bunch of guilt ridden honkeys and angry negros - just as one would find them described on RedState.

If you object to the words “trumped up” then you’re saying the charges of racism are true.

So when the Obama campaign and supporters claim that the Clinton campaign (and by extension their supporters) are racist, they are correct in your opinion.

But at the same time you want to say that these charges have had no effect on the voters? Why put so much effort into making these charges of racism then?

Who am I? Why I’m a new member of the site you can be justly proud of having helped build. And what a warm welcome you’ve offered me. :-)

If I have mistakenly misrepresented the nature of your posts, I hope you will accept my sincere apology. The only mitigating factor I’ll offer in my defense is that the nuances of people’s various positions can get lost amid all the acid flinging going on here.

My criticisms of Hillary obviously disturb you on a visceral level. But I have not addressed any members of this site with even one-twentieth of the discourtesy you and several others have directed towards me on a virtually constant basis. So I’ll ask you to excuse me if I view your accusation of trollishness with some degree of skepticism.

If you want to make this an officially pro-Hillary site, please do so and I will trouble you no more. If not, you’ll embarrass yourself less if you address the statements of “the Oborg trolls” - as you so charmingly describe us - on their own merits rather than with the ad hominem spittle flecking your cheeks now.

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

And don’t forget, this constant cry of racism against an opponent, will not work in the GE. the media, loving McCain as they do, won’t bite, will paint Obama as a victim b/c of it, even if it is blatantly true(and it will be, repubs can’t help but play the race card, it’s all they have).

And the complaints of sexism? Do you think the few nuts on Dkos, who are generally corrected when they try this “bitch” stuff, are anything like what would be unleashed on a Clinton candidacy?

I think it’s more than time to give people a little benefit of the doubt and cool the rhetoric.

Note the “primarily” and the “trumped up”. If Obama’s lead is based primarily on “trumped up” charges of racism, the Democratic electorate must be a bunch of guilt ridden honkeys and angry negros - just as one would find them described on RedState.

If you object to the words “trumped up” then you’re saying the charges of racism are true.

I’m not even getting to that yet. The ironically named “vastleft” claimed that Obama had a lead primarily because of “trumped up” accusations of racism. Obama’s success against the candidate who the press claimed had already won just a few months ago is, according to this, primarily because of these charges. Note the word “primarily”. According to “vastleft”, Obama would be losing if his campaign had not trumped up these accusations.

The winger trolls on Atrios make this type of assertion on a daily basis.

My theory is that most of Obama’s voters find his policies and rhetoric appealing and that the racism accusations have been a stupid sideshow. And note that the really loud shrieks on the topic of race have been from Hillary supporters like the color blind Professor Wilentz.

Why Won’t That Stupid Bitch Quit must be annoying the right people, ’cause the trolls are all over it.

I find the herpes metaphor pretty funny, actually. It’s just so true (although fortunately, I have no actual experience with the real thing, so if there’s a real doctor reading this, they can correct my misconceptions).

For one thing, once you catch herpes, you can’t get rid of it, and sweet Jeebus, does that remind me of our trolls.

For another, sunlight is a really good treatment for a herpes outbreak, and on every thread, our trolls are exposed to sunlight for the world to see, and showing themselves for what they are. I’m hoping that over time they dry up and blow away.

I’m also hoping that the Fellows and our diligent, alert readers have the patience and fortitude to keep our conceptual immune system strong enough, and our informational hygiene effective enough, to control the outbreaks — otherwise, we’ll have to consider more intensive moderation, like TalkLeft, for example. (Any readers who think we should do this, feel free to comment to this effect, or use the Feedback form.) But for now…

Finally, herpes is a virus. So many of the right wing tropes our trolls have been using — like The Clenis — have “gone viral,” as the saying goes.

So, all in all a pretty good metaphor. Sorry the trolls take offense. Not.

UPDATE Forgot to say… I’m thinking that simplex is the only variety we’ve contracted so far, but I could be wrong….

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Clinton gets insulted and you call it a mistake that she didn’t throw Ferraro away (the first and only female VP candidate in history, btw, and someone who’s been thru the gauntlet already)—but Obama was praised for keeping Wright (who is an unending stream of invective and divisiveness).

why?

The ad hominem attacks - while I don’t begrudge you the special little tickle you seem to get from them - don’t seem to be working. Look… here I am again already.

In fact, I’m afraid that the intellectual bankruptcy they front for has only boldened the infestation.

So please start removing my posts when they threaten the conceptual immune systems [I like that phrase, actually] of yourself and the similarly vulnerable members of the board.

You need all the help you can get.

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

Thank you for commenting, ribo. Welcome aboard. Help end the war in Iraq. Get your candidate to be the first to sign the Responsible Plan, and post what you did.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

But as a white male, I have to say that crying ’racism’ where it isn’t, or being accused of being racist JUST BECAUSE I’M WHITE* when a non-white person saying the same thing can get away with it, these kinds of things can really backfire.

Would I be willing to bet that there is a Dem white population who finds the race card offensive, a population at least as big as the entire AA population in America? Yes, I would.

Would the race card move offend enough white voters to offset said AA population, who Obama erroneously assumes are ’in the bag’? I’d bet that, yes.

It’s a wash, and a lot of people get VERY angry, and race relations go down the toilet. Way to unite the nation, Obama.

*Strangely enough, racism does work both ways. I’m not claiming a long ugly history of racism against the white man, but as a white male who’d worked at a public library for 5 years, I can tell you that stupidity and prejudice come in all flavors.

he chose Katrina for a reason.

And, of course, Obama didn’t lift a finger during Katrina (or Jena, etc), nor did he cry or care, and he’s more self-centered—writing 2 autobiographies before the age of 40 is not a sign of a self-effacing person. The self-centered part is nothing compared to bringing up Katrina at that time in the campaigns. The media never follows up on Obama, but someone really should have immediately asked what he did during Katrina, and why he’s never voted or acted differently than her on Iraq, etc.

If you object to the words “trumped up” then you’re saying the charges of racism are true.

I’m not even getting to that yet.

Either you think the charges of racism are “trumped up” or they are true. Which one is it? When are you going to get to it?

You also object to the word “primarily”. So you think the racism charges are “partially” responsible for Obama’s success?

actually was all about grievances and anger against one by the other—and validated them on all sides—which was wrong.

all along, i’ve thought Obama has been enabling racism and liberal guilt as well, by reinforcing existing prejudices and fears and trying to reassure whites he wasn’t like other blacks (he’s good/cool/etc, not like the kids on the street, etc), or other black candidates—it’s why they responded so strongly to Bill’s comments in SC—it hit them right where they had investing so much time assuaging white concerns.

Submitted by amberglow on Thu, 2008-03-27 20:02.

* reply

Of course he chose it for a reason - it’s a stupendous human catastrophe. But what you want to do is mindread Jackson and insist that he mentions Katrina to indicate Clinton is a racist and mentions the Iraq War and banking crisis only to throw lesser intellects off the scent of his race baiting. So Jackson makes, what on the face of it is a straightforward accusation that Hillary is self-centered, and because he is a black supporter of Obama, you feel comfortable trotting out winger constructs about race baiting. Good luck with that.

And then to defend this silly reading, you try to misdirect to a discussion about whether Obama is egotistical. Here I’d like to explain something simple to you: Anyone running for President of the United States is going to be very ambitious and egotistical. Hope that helps.

Either you think the charges of racism are “trumped up” or they are true. Which one is it? When are you going to get to it?

You also object to the word “primarily”. So you think the racism charges are “partially” responsible for Obama’s success?

I think that the statement that Obamas success is due primarily to trumped up accusations of racism is a vile and racist lie that one would expect to see from a winger troll and not from someone who claims the name “vastleft”. Is that simple enough for you?

So sensitive, so articulate. And still a total a-hole. Quite a specimen.

and that’s the point.

That’s not how you accuse someone of being self-centered when that’s your only aim (which you don’t know for sure of Jackson either, btw—mindreading yourself maybe?)—and that’s not how you cast aspersion on whether they were tears for herself or real or crocodile tears or not.

Bringing up specific catastrophes as examples of things she didn’t publicly cry for in the past actually removed the focus from her and hurt his attack greatly by adding distractions that are both politically charged and in the case of Katrina, glaring examples of racial (and class) disparity killing people.

Even just being sexist like Obama and attributing it to her period and how women are emotional “periodically” and the “claws come out” and they’re not to be trusted would have been more on point. What Jackson did was bring 2 issues they wanted to hit her on anyway—race and Iraq.

Sounds like the Oedipus Complex, see what I mean? Let’s try not to confuse the brands.

And, Shystee, are you sure “specimen” is the word you want? I mean, eew.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Ah, but the sexism is explicit, and comes from the candidate’s mouth. And I will remind you that it’s never Hillary who is accused of being blatantly racist, it’s always her surrogates in charge of “spin”, where things are open to interpretation.

And I hate to inform you, but women outnumber you, and we outvote you. We are your mothers, your sisters, your wives and your daughters, and women, always categorized as the “weaker sex”(which are how these snide remarks are attempting to portray her) have been putting up with this shit, since the rise of monotheistic religion, and it needs to stop.

I don’t know the gender breakdown of that 28% desertion from Obama, but I would bet that a number of it is women, who are sick and tired of being told while racism if horrible, sexism is still okey-dokey.*

The honest truth is that attacking Clinton still helps her in many ways, but that is b/c of the screwed up gender constructs in our society, look at NH, and the GOP has figured it out(that’s why you actually seeing FOX be more balanced towards her, being biased works against her doesn’t work), Obama hasn’t. And it will work for the juvenile and misogynistic support base he has, who are perfectly willing to allow their unexamined sexism lead them to refight the battles of the 90’s(and cost him support faithful democrats, who remember the Clintons with nostalgia) and allow him to defeat Clinton, and win the nomination.

And lose the GE, since on the whole, he is a neophyte politician who has never run a competitive race against the true masters of “shadow racism”. He does not define himself, but allows himself to be defined by whatever his supporters want to see in him(and the GOP will do that as well).

That’s why I hope it goes to a floor fight** at the convention, where the backbone of the Democratic party(mostly women) will get sick of this guy trashing our party, takes him down a notch after the first vote, when they are allowed to change thier pledged vote.

*I am not attempting to get into an oppression contest. I understand full well that both racism and sexism are deep and troubling parts of our society, and both must be dealt with. We are not born racist, or sexist, or religiously intolerant. We are educated into it, always by those in power, to keep us from working together against those who would oppress us all.

**This is actually what I hope happens, it would be delightfully exciting(hoping for no riots, I would truly like us all to come together in November), and much more entertaining to political junkies like me, than our previous boring conventions.

in the case of Katrina, glaring examples of racial (and class) disparity killing people

Let’s not forget that the Iraq war and the mortgage crisis are glaring examples as well.

What I don’t understand, is honestly what is the benefit to Clinton. The media hates her, and has gone after these accusations, true or not, to her detriment. If the Clintons are as evil and conniving as people always claim, shouldn’t they have seen this coming. Or are they like Bond and comic-book villians, and so stupid they always shoot themselves in the foot.

it wasn’t straightforward at all,
new
Submitted by amberglow on Thu, 2008-03-27 20:31.

That’s not how you accuse someone of being self-centered when that’s your only aim (which you don’t know for sure of Jackson either, btw—mindreading yourself maybe?)—and that’s not how you cast aspersion on whether they were tears for herself or real or crocodile tears or not.

I’m not mindreading at all, I’m simply giving this well known progressive democrat the benefit of the doubt and not trying to build some wacko winger accusation of “playing the race card” out of someone saying that Clinton doesn’t really care about anything other than herself. I have no idea what his “real” aim was - all I can do is try to understand what he said and refrain from playing stupid games about secret meanings.

As for Obama’s periodic comment - you folks really are stretching.
“Before the New Hampshire victory, Hillary Clinton’s aides worried that her husband’s periodic outbursts were making him a liability.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl…

I don’t know the gender breakdown of that 28% desertion from Obama, but I would bet that a number of it is women, who are sick and tired of being told while racism if horrible, sexism is still okey-dokey.*

I am sick and tired of being told that opposing the AUMF candidate is sexism.

Go ask the Iraqi women how they have benefited from Senator Clintons’ gross caving in.

Let’s not forget that the Iraq war and the mortgage crisis are glaring examples as well.

What I don’t understand, is honestly what is the benefit to Clinton. The media hates her, and has gone after these accusations, true or not, to her detriment. If the Clintons are as evil and conniving as people always claim, shouldn’t they have seen this coming. Or are they like Bond and comic-book villians, and so stupid they always shoot themselves in the foot.

Sigh. The claim was made that Jackson’s remarks are race baiting. He did not say that Clinton was evil. He made a straightforward remark about priorities that apparently black politicians are not allowed to make.

I am sick and tired of being told that opposing the AUMF candidate is sexism.

It’s not that you oppose her, it’s how. Off the top of my head I can’t say that I have noticed any glaring examples of sexism from you particularly, but they are out there, they have been blatant, and they have been spoken by Obama himself.

And women are noticing.

In other words, it’s not about you. When accusations of sexism have flown, like at Chris Matthews per se, the record was undeniable, it was confronted, and it has been corrected somewhat.

So, all together now, it’s not about you, so stop acting like it is. But now Obama’s Archie Bunker contest was making it about “you”, in the sense that “you” was a voter in Ohio. My pointing out that the constant retreat into sexism is becoming a liability for Obama, something that the GOP has already learned, is not accusing you of being sexist. You have no reason to take what I am saying as a slight against you personally(and while you claim you’re being heinously attacked with ad hominem, I have not, so stop projecting).

The attacks Clinton is being subjected to are nothing new to women in this country. And since Obama’s position are identical to hers(except she supports banning our mercenary army from Iraq, something the great anti-war candidate has not yet claimed), Obama has given me no reason to vote for him. A nice start would be to also apologize for Wright’s remark about her not having to “work twice a hard”. Honestly, that ticked me off more that the G-d America line, b/c that is something I have thought and said myself.

The easy answer would be that Wright was correct about race and Ferraro wasn’t.

But since I won’t get anywhere arguing that, I’ll concede you have a very strong point here.

If Ferraro was as meaningful a figure to Clinton as Wright is to Obama, and Hillary’s slowness and weakness in disassociating herself from Ferraro’s comments came from her respect for the relationship, you’re right - she doesn’t deserve my criticism here.

But is that really the case?

You tell me.

“Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.” - Reuters, 3/27/08

So Clinton (a political savant) who as far as I know has never uttered a racist remark publicly that I’m aware of, went into S.C. of all places and announced to the whitey racists in this country that this win was like Jesse Jackson Sr., and don’t take it seriously. Nevermind the fact that the offended party (Jackson Sr.) said it was silly gotcha politics.

But Obama didn’t benefit from these charges?

Okay!

The attacks Clinton is being subjected to are nothing new to women in this country. And since Obama’s position are identical to hers(except she supports banning our mercenary army from Iraq, something the great anti-war candidate has not yet claimed), Obama has given me no reason to vote for him. A nice start would be to also apologize for Wright’s remark about her not having to “work twice a hard”. Honestly, that ticked me off more that the G-d America line, b/c that is something I have thought and said myself.

1) Clinton has been subjected to a great deal of misogynist attacks, particularly from the right and the media.
2)Obama has, as far as I know, never made any sexist remarks about Clinton or anyone else. The oft cited examples rely on unlikely parsings “periodic” and “claws out” that were, at most, dumb phrasing.
3) Obama has a much longer record of being in favor of regulating and controlling the mercenary army than Clinton does - he has legislation to make contractor deals more transparent and to put them under US law. Hillary’s late found objection to mercenary troops is nice, but seems more for show since the US forces in Iraq are entirely dependent on contractors and she calls for an ongoing “residual force” in Iraq for some undetermined time.

#3, link please, I have seen nothing of the sort, and the item I mentioned was not about transparency, it was about getting them out of Iraq entirely, but nice try.

from the right and the media

Actually, not so much anymore. They learned the lesson of New Hampshire. It will work(and has been) for Obama now, but that’s b/c it’s all he’s got.

It is illuminating to see that the best people have come up with so far with Clinton, is a refight of the 90’s, because it means they don’t have anything better. It just goes to show you how strong a candidate she really is.

he’s gonna grow the military, and has not promised to touch contracting at all, and even has his own pet defense contractor and wants to invest millions (billions?) in high-tech weapon things—and star wars too.

A Military Earmark’s Ties to Obama Money Man — http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail…

“… Obama, who has not served in the military, pledged to maintain the country’s “overwhelming” advantage in conventional warfare, as well as increase ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines “to relieve the strain on our troops and to increase our capacity to put boots on the ground.” …” —
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail…

more weapons earmarks— http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/ob…

“… Obama in fact, supports limited missile defenses and continued “research” on a national missile defense. …” — http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarn…

there’s tons more—he wants to spend billions and billions on war stuff.

— http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarn…

“…On the armed forces overall, Obama calls for “building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people.”

This includes, Barack Obama says, the current plan to expand the overall size of the U.S. military by nearly 100,000 (65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines), and “recruiting the best and brightest to service, … keeping them in service by providing them with the first-rate equipment, armor, training, and incentives they deserve.”

America’s military, Obama says, should be “the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats.” He specifically supports “sustaining our technological edge.”

…”

“… Two major bundlers for his campaign — George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar - are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company. Just last month, Sen. Obama accepted another $8,400 from ExxonMobil, $12,370 from Chevron and $6,500 from British Petroleum.

In 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, which was written in secret with the oil industry. …” —- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28…

http://obama.senate.gov/press/071004-oba…

http://obama.senate.gov/news/071022-priv…

http://illinoischannel.spa
ces.live.com/blog/cns!B0DB128F5CD96151!2643.entry

And here’s a skeptical story that gives an outline

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/je…

his amendments in Congress were killed by the GOP and fellow Dems—further showing he can’t unify. He didn’t filibuster, or fight to keep them in, or vote against any of the no-strings funding bills that still go to contractors, or go to the mat with subpoenas or garner support or use his massive media love to stop no-bid contracts, or …

And he’s gonna keep contractors there bec they’ll allow him to reduce actual troops— which will make him look good—Hillary’s just as bad on this too.

They even have a new malaria now in Iraq they call Blackwater Fever.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factche…

Remember Dynacorp in Bosnia during Senator Clinton’s 35 years of experience?

—why is that a “response”? it’s not.

Contractors are legally liable and it’s only this administration’s DOJ that lies and says they’re not and twists the Iraqi’s arms so they don’t throw them out or prosecute them.

He should know that. All of Congress let themselves be played on this with Prince and others lying to them. All of them.