Back to Her Sluttish Ways...w/poll

Though not my first choice, HRC's ability to keep her shit together during this primary season has really impressed me. I saw Maureen Dowd's headline about HRC crying her way into the white house and clicked off the NYT. She presents HRC as someone who only cares about running the WH, as if there is something SO unseemly about ambition. As if a lack of ambition ever got anyone but the older Gandhi anywhere (e was very ambitious when young, as was Mandela, MLK, etc...) There is so much sexism it's making me ill.

Case in point: HRC's famous "meltdown in the NH debate." Wow--look at the debate. What meltdown? Oh, she showed some emotion.  Crazy woman...

And it's making me think I need to take a good second look at Hillary Clinton, as a leader, as a stoic, as a fighter, and as a liberal.

HRC was originally my third choice.  I like O's style more and think he could get a lot done. (My gut loves Edwards, but the fiery rhetoric is not going to accomplish anything, I now feel.) And I do think HRC is more hawkish (I don't like this).  That said, she's 8000 miles to the dove compared to the current group in the WH. And I remember the last Democratic outsiders we sent to the wh. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. They got a LOT done, oh yeah, even if they were decent men--more then decent men.

Experience DOES count.  Insider connections DO count.  Politics is in many respects the art of trading favors. And why do we pretend that angels flew Obama and Edwards to their current positions in life?

Beholden to the pharma companies? C'mon--which of the top 3 hasn't taken money from big pharma? HRC gets more because she's perceived to be more influential, not because she's inherently more evil than Obama. They've both taken hundreds of thousands--and his health plan is slightly less inclusive than hers is.

I find myself rethinking things this morning.

Because our hearts can be in the right place, but we have to think strategically. I hear people on this saying they will never vote for HRC. Oh lord...we need DEM judges in the Supreme Court. We need someone who actually cares about families (and if you don't think HRC does, you're a moron, plain and simple) and works for legislation that can accomplish change, in healthcare and minimum wage (something she has fought for). And electability? If McCain is the nominee, the contrast between a man with 4 years in the Senate and a woman with much more experience (and if you don't think her years with Bill count as experience, think about Eleanor Roosevelt, who never held public office but was her husband's eyes and ears and most trusted advisor--not much HRC wasn't in on).

Yes, I am thinking this morning.

I'm not wild about her campaign's tactics, but I'm not wild about Obama's wife telling people a vote for Edwards is wasted because of his choice about financing. I'm not wild about Edwards' gangup of her on TV, which looked silly to me. I'm not wild when a remark one of  Hilary's campaign workers makes is headlined on this site as coming from Hillary herself, but that when Obama tours with a homophobic minister we look the other way. Grown-up politicians link themselves to others to get elected (Obama's lobbyist campaign chairman in NH--oh, but not a FEDERAL lobbyist..makes all the difference...no one's beholden to anyone there...).

And mostly I realize that much of my persepctive on her is driven by what the MSM chooses to focus on, and that it precludes all her work in the past. She is a worker. I think Obama is too, but Steinem's money quote was, would a woman with less than 1 term in the Senate ever dream of putting herself forward to govern the most powerful nation on earth? She'd be mocked.

Gee, I am vacillating.  Is it because I'm a woman and too dumb/flakey to make a choice and stick to it? Is it because I saw HRC's eyes well up and thought, Oh my God, they made her cry, and that's mean and so I'll vote for her? Or SHE cries. I CRY. Ronald Reagan cried. Bush cried. It must mean we're all secret imperialistic morons and THAT's why I'll vote for her.

I wrote a diary entitled "I am a Barack/Edwards slut." I think I've kicked Edwards out of bed, and lo and behold, found that I'm bisexual with respect to my political musings.

Will you respect me in the morning? I don't have time to care. I'm too busy rethinking things...

•  Totally inappropriate title n/t

  by TheSilence on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:17:41 AM PDT

  •  Moved

    and seconded.
    We're better than this....at least, most of us are.

    by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:18:58 AM PDT

    •  I didn't even get it

      But oh well.  I'm designed to tune certain perjoratives.

      by Detroit Mark on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:19:33 AM PDT

      •  I Thought It Was Clever

        But, in the context of the kind of diary entries we will read about Sen. Clinton today, people will of course assume that the title is about her.

        by bink on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:21:32 AM PDT

        •  I'm not really a fan of the word slut

          used in any context, particularly towards anyone other than yourself (as in, I'm a slut).

          by TheSilence on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:22:42 AM PDT

          •  Hi, I'm

            a (male) slut.  Or at least I was during my college days.  Going on 8 yrs of celibacy through lack of ambition and a job that ground me into premature old age.  A tip of the shot glass to all my fellow sluts of either gender out there.

            by drbloodaxe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:28:21 AM PDT

            •  You should get some ambition or another job. n/t

              by rainmanjr on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:44:49 AM PDT

              •  Trying

                I actually took 3 yrs of nursing classes, but I put off my state licensing exam til I get my current project at work stabilized enough that my being unavailable 50% of the time won't basically destroy the company.  Although my job has a lot of downside, I feel I owe my boss because he at least kept me employed through the dark era of Shrub domination.

                by drbloodaxe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:10:09 AM PDT

          •  She was refering to herself, I think

            and included Ms Dowd inadvertently, intentionally unintentionally.

            The dismissal of Edwards based on his hard work of moving the debate to the left was uncalled for. The use of the word slut was just an effort to get us to read this diary.

            by FishOutofWater on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:43:28 AM PDT

            •  And it worked, sadly...

              Lots of comments in here.

              by thewhiterabbit on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:29:06 AM PDT

          •  I call promiscuous men sluts

            and women "players" ...affirmative action!

            by Hairy Legs on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:51:03 AM PDT

            •  With the conflate

              of your post and your screen name, I feel compelled to ask whether you are male or female.

              by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:38:50 AM PDT

            •  I may rethink my vocab--player it is!

              by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:39:44 AM PDT

          •  That is the very contex the diarist used.

            The title refers to the diarist, not the candidate.

            by Quicklund on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:16:46 AM PDT

        •  I thought it was a reference to MoDo n/t

          by litigatormom on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:07:22 AM PDT

          •  No--I made the assumption folks would read to end

            of diary...

            by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:40:45 AM PDT

  •  diarist refers to herself

    not HRC.

    by Stroszek on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:20:04 AM PDT

  •  Tip Jar

    Referring (tongue in cheek) to myself. Let's appropriate the language of the morons...

    by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:23:16 AM PDT

    •  Could you add first names to the tags?

      I'm a bit low on Rec's so I can't fix them for you.

      Thanks!

      by PatsBard on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:37:39 AM PDT

    •  It would have been easier to title it

      Back to MY Sluttish Ways, less offensive and certainly the message would be clearer ;0)

      by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:19:21 AM PDT

•  Unswept Stone, Besmeared with Sluttish Time

  I think that, more than any other candidate, Sen. Clinton remains complicated.  She has not streamlined her message, she's not good at an "aerodynamic" campaign like Barack Obama.  As a consequence, folks here never "got" her and might never "get" her.  At the same time, there is a lot about her to like, even if you can't like the whole thing.

  by bink on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:20:32 AM PDT

  •  Good thing we're not hiring her to campaign

    Obama's a crappy debater.  Does that mean he'd make a bad president?  Of course not.

    We're hiring whomever to be president.  To get our troops out of Iraq, to get the deficit back toward surplus, to stop christians and lobbyists from buying our government, and to be standing by when there's a major hurricane.

    Not to "carry themselves well" in a campaign.

    by Detroit Mark on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:24:55 AM PDT

•  I've become more confident

  that any of the top 3 would make a great contender in Nov.

  PS - I fourth, fifth, or whatever it is at this pt the motion regarding your title--it's just a distraction.

  by Hprof on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:21:27 AM PDT

  •  Ok...I'll change it...

    by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:24:58 AM PDT

    •  thanks - btw, I got what you meant

      when I read the diary, and wasn't offended by it - I just thought it was a distraction - that people would end up discussing the title rather than the content.

      I'm an Obama supporter, but I have to say that I was impressed by HRC's debate performance Sat night.  I can't say it changed my mind, but perhaps it mattered to some undecided NH voters.

      by Hprof on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:29:56 AM PDT

      •  I changed the title--then changed it back

        I wanted people to read the diary, and most, seeing Clinton's name in it, won't...

        I also have spent my life afraid to speak my thoughts in all their truth.  I believe that using words like slut ironically can take the sting out of them--and the "politics makes strange bedfellows" meme makes all sorts of things come to mind.

        It also made sense on the heels of my last diary, which explored how passionate feelings that have little objective basis often inform our political desires.  I didn't even mean sexual attraction--more like cathexis, "he thinks like I do, thus I love him" (me and Edwards) instead of "who is most likely to actually pull off some pregressive change, understanding Congress does the legislating (Obama or Hillary)

        by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:27:37 AM PDT

•  You People and your Polls

  You get spanked like this every election and you still don't learn.

  POLLS...ARE...MEANINGLESS.

  This doesn't even mean Hillary will win the election.  What it means is ... you don't know what will happen until election day and you can't stand not being in control of something like the outcome.  So to satiate your desire, there's a market whereby polls are purchased to give you exactly what you want.  And you lap it up like a starving cat.

  Whatever.  You keep going with those "polls."

  Me, I'm satisfied with two ideas ... 1)  I support Hillary Clinton.  2)  Beyond that I don't know shit and neither do you.

  by Detroit Mark on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:21:48 AM PDT

  •  all that matters

    GOTV

    That's how Clinton won New Hampshire, that's how the eventual nominee will win February 5th, that's how the eventual president will win in November.

    Polls aren't a science, they are funded by the MSM for the benefit of the MSM and nothing more.

    by Stroszek on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:24:30 AM PDT

•  Short Victory

  She won the majority vote from white women. Please someone tell me how this is a victory for Hillary.

  by wisconsin girl on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:23:42 AM PDT

  •  Ok...It's Not

    It's a victory for John Edwards.

    There ya feel better?

    by Detroit Mark on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:25:48 AM PDT

    •  Funny.

      Watch out or you'll be tagged a snot, though.  Unless, of course, you explicitly state it's snark (or make a smiley face).  :-)

      by rainmanjr on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:52:57 AM PDT

      •  It's not snark

        Your question is as irrelevent as my answer.

        If anything, it's irony.

        by Detroit Mark on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:09:20 AM PDT

  •  The victory

    was in not getting so overwhelmingly stomped that she basically decided to just go ahead and concede as many pundits were suggesting.  A victory for all of us, in a sense, as yet again we get to sneer at the pundits and the polls they try to foist off on us, no matter whether we're pro or con Hillary.

    Instead, thanks to a few thousand extra voters, she gets to be called 'the winner', but will still get exactly the same number of delegates out of NH as Obama.  9 apiece.  Had NH been a winner take all state, she would have fared even better.  

    She's still ahead though, thanks to previously pledged superdelegates (ie, congresscritters and party bigwigs who get a vote even without representing the specific will of their primary voters.)  On the Dem side, something like 800 of the circa 4k delegates are superdelegates, if I remember what I read correctly.  So just as with the electoral college, a particular primary candidate could win the majority of popular vote delegates and still lose because the superdelegates overwhelmingly back another candidate.

    Another way the whole system is setup to allow those in power to ignore the will of actual voters.

    by drbloodaxe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:36:59 AM PDT

•  Hillary Clinton is setting women back A LOT

  I didn't think she could make it worse but she has.  Her candidacy validates patriarchy and nepotism as THE path to advancement for women.  And now this.

  A lot of people look at it and say the tears were deliberate and manipulative or that it just goes to show that women have to be treated with kid gloves all the time, etc. and its all about their feelings.  Thats one thing and I don't know how deliberate it was.  But what looks really bad, IMO, is that women voters seem to have gone to her in the last day over this tearing up incident.  It looks like it was women, from the polls.  What does that say about women?  It makes women as a gender look more prone to flightiness and unreliability, IMO.  Thats a shame.  

  Thanks for bringing up the Maureen Dowd column.  I don't usually check her but I'll go see what she has to say about it.  

  by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:25:11 AM PDT

  •  Women are different than men.

    I've noticed that, a few times.
    Has it occurred to you that Bill Clinton probably won the White House because of Hillary? He was a failed politician when they married. She's obviously very bright, very hard-working, very dedicated to her causes. Speaking from the non-distaff side, I wonder if a lot of women are looking at Hillary and saying "FINALLY, the wife is getting the credit she deserves!"

    by BoringDem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:31:26 AM PDT

    •  You're making my point

      I'd be less inclined to give an important responsibility to someone who reasons like that.  Are women more inclined to reason like that?  Thats what the polls are telling us.  Ergo, bad for women as a gender.

      by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:36:11 AM PDT

      •  It's not an emotional reason, it's experience

        And you think men don't vote on emotion? HAHAHA

        I'll wait and see if any women agree with me.

        by BoringDem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:42:59 AM PDT

        •  Well, apparently they (men) didn't vote for

          a candidate because she cried.  Or very few did.  Looks like it was women voters.  

          by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:46:48 AM PDT

          •  Um, you could just as easily argue the other way

            The "tears" played a small role in the race, anyway.

            by BoringDem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:48:30 AM PDT

          •  I have to say that I find your argument somewhat

            offensive. Women have had to surmount so many barriers.  If Hillary had become President after Bill had been assassinated, or if she had run in 2000, I'd think you had a point. Hillary has been a high profile Senator for 7 years now---the reputation she has today would not be as strong if she had not shown she was very capable.
            Women's talents and intellect have been wasted for so many generations. The women on my mother's side of the family had only one option---become a teacher.
            Some women didn't even have that.
            Whatever "advantage" Hillary has gotten from being Bill's spouse is far outweighed by the triple that every man has hit when he is born.

            by BoringDem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:56:32 AM PDT

            •  The grass is greener

              I've often felt that (modern) women hit the triple.  As a white male, I get to be assumed to make more money for equal work, that I'm privileged in all kinds of old boy ways, I'm automatically suspect as a potential sexual harasser/deviant.

              In reality, I make 1/3 of the average pay for my region and skillset and experience in the industry, have no kinds of connections (never 'fratted', never 'networked'), and am automatically disqualified from all sorts of minority or gender based affirmative action sorta deals.  I won't claim I got as far as I have on life based on my own merits.  I got here mainly through the support (ka-ching) of my parents, who were both incredibly thrifty, hardworking educators, and have been able to provide me with greater opportunities than they had.  The fact that I still don't make more than they did or haven't 'climbed in society' is both societal and personal, my own depressive nature.

              Trust me, being born with a penis isn't any 'triple'.

              by drbloodaxe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:06:48 AM PDT

              •  Um, I have one of those things, thanks

                In politics, being a male is definitely a huge advantage.

                by BoringDem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:09:01 AM PDT

                •  Ah

                  I'm not in politics.

                  And never will be, too open about admitted drug use a few decades back when I was young and stupid, or making incredibly snarky cynical comments online that are easy to take out of context.

                  by drbloodaxe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:07:44 AM PDT

              •  Sexual harassment

                Probably both sexes have to be very careful of not doing anything that might be misinterpreted or even misused.  With all these women teachers having sex with teenagers, people will believe an accusation against a woman, too.

                by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:45:26 AM PDT

                •  I just get

                  prickly because I got accused of sexual harassment for telling a female student she looked like a racoon.  (She'd just gotten back from spending spring break skiing, and had a sunburn except where the goggles had been covering her face, giving her a pale mask around her eyes.)

                  To this day, I still haven't figured out how that could be construed as sexual harassment or why she thought I wouldn't have said the exact same thing to a male student with the same sunburn pattern.

                  by drbloodaxe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:06:11 AM PDT

                  •  Hmmm

                    My husband just retired from a big company, the kind that does seminars on stuff like sexual harassment because they're covering themselves, I guess.  The message was:  try not to be alone with anyone of the opposite sex and don't make personal compliments.  It must be harder for a teacher because you want their attention and being stiff is a hindrance to that.  

                    by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:34:18 AM PDT

                    •  It wasn't

                      actually a compliment.  I just found the pattern of the sunburn amusing.  And said it in an open location full of people.

                      Quite frankly, there was another student who could have made the same charge and probably gotten me booted out.  There was a lot of Police 'Don't stand so close to me' tension between us, and I found out later half the department, staff and students alike assumed we were involved, even though we weren't.  The assumption was so widespread that had SHE made such a charge, everyone would have automatically assumed it true.

                      by drbloodaxe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:52:29 AM PDT

                      •  Yikes

                        Do you really want to be in that line of work?  Its a lot to give up a professional career but accusation is something to fear.  Look at the Duke LaCrosse players:  an insane story from a woman with a psychiatric history who had made and dropped gang rape accusations previously and if those young men hadn't been the sons of millionaires they'd be serving 30 year prison terms now.  

                        by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:03:06 PM PDT

                        •  Oh I'm not

                          That was while I got my PhD and had to teach classes for a fellowship.  I quit teaching as soon as I finished my degree.  Been a coder for the last 8 yrs.

                          by drbloodaxe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM PDT

                          •  Congratulations and good luck nt

                            by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:26:25 PM PDT

            •  "Offensive"

              Within 3 or 4 comments, you jump to being offended.  

              You're still not seeing my point:  The polls say the change in support for Obama was women.  Many will surely see it as a result of the tears episode.  It is a shallow basis on which to vote.  One does not trust important responsibilities to shallow people.  Ergo, women in general are hurt.  

              Not saying I'm happy about that.  I would never vote for someone to make him/her feel better.  But certainly some will see that as the motivation for what happened and thats just a fact.

              by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:28:18 AM PDT

              •  Um, you don't know it was the tears; in fact

                experience was cited as the most important factor, overall.
                I think Hillary actually convinced people she was the better candidate, on the merits.

                by BoringDem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:35:13 AM PDT

                •  Change is too abrupt for that

                  The other possibility is the Bradley effect working on older people, especially women.  The swing is too big.  

                  by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:47:29 AM PDT

                  •  Curve-fit your data much? Lol

                    by BoringDem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:21:26 AM PDT

              •  Interesting catch by Eriposte at

                the left coaster, which bolsters my  argument: among voters who thought the debate on Saturday was important, Clinton got more votes.

                by BoringDem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:37:33 AM PDT

          •  I heard a guy, interviewed on KNPR, say this.

            He voted for HRC because he felt the earth needs a mother, at this time.  That it feels like the earth is crying and needs to be mothered.  That is why he voted for HRC.  She's a mother.
            Guys make just as many decisions for goofy reasons as women.  I know, I'm a guy.

            by rainmanjr on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:58:06 AM PDT

            •  Sure, but that guy's the exception that proves

              the rule.  He's a flake, right?  What I'm trying to say is that voting for sympathy is flaky, flighty, unreliable.  And, apparently, this looks to have been women in the main.  

              NOT saying I like it that the flaky-appearance will rub off on women in general but I think it will.  

              by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:34:11 AM PDT

    •  Nail on the head...

      Actually, they are both policy wonks.  She knows just about everything about how gov't works.

      I'm still trying to figure it all out.  I have a lot of respect for her, but I also DO understand the power of words to lead. She has an unfortunate voice, in some respects.

      I think I'll be glad if either of them wins now.  I think they both are about the ame on Iraq--hinting at what they think you want to hear. Edwards is the one most aggressive about getting us out (and Richardson).

      I think both recognize they can't box themselves them in, and that they must take things as they find them and then move.

      I think she's smart, but does she have the golden leadership thing that can make space for change? I don't know.

      by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:47:32 AM PDT

  •  Not a terrible Hillary fan

    But I have to agree with the damned if you do, damned if you don't crowd there.

    You can suggest patriarchy and nepotism simply because of the prior history of Bill.  But had Bill never been born, can you say she wouldn't still be running today?  This is a very strong willed, very ambitious woman.  Arguably moreso than Bill ever was.  I may not like her strategy or her vision all that much, but she's eminently capable of having come this far on her own.

    Ditto on the tearing.  Could have been genuine, could have been calculated.  Some people can tear up on demand, dunno if she's one of them.  But one of the complaints about her has been her lack of emotion - the same robotic facade that sunk Bob Dole, who actually turned out to be fairly amusing once he escaped his campaign handlers and started doing Viagra commercials.  So women voters may...may have turned tables in the last few days on that incident.  We don't know for sure, but maybe it doesn't indicate 'flightiness' or unreliability.  Maybe it was the normal human urge to give a boost to an underdog or someone judged as being unfairly put upon.  I just wish Dean had gotten the same consideration after the media pulled the crap with his campaign shout that they turned into a 'faux pas'.  On the other hand, maybe many of those women who came out for her (generally middle aged or older if I recall) hadn't planned to vote, but the weather turned out so well that they were able to shift other responsibilities long enough to get down to the polls.

    So no.  I don't 'like' (ie, disagreement with stances, policy, strategy) Hillary, but I don't feel she's done her gender any disservice with her run.  I'd say she's doing a decent enough job, whether she ends up winning or losing.

    Hell, I'm one of the people who has hyperbolically claimed I'd never vote for her, but really, given the Rep field, I'd still no doubt grit my teeth, vote for her, and hope a more progressive Dem congress can drag her farther to the left during her presidency.

    by drbloodaxe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:51:08 AM PDT

•  I'm not re-thinking anything.

  I support Edwards and if he doesn't make it, my support will go to Obama.

  That was only the first primary, and I'll be darned if I'd change my support based on one primary.  

  by nupstateny on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:44:39 AM PDT

•  Spoke my feelings, too.

  I'd rather not see HRC win but, if she does, I'll still vote for her and feel we've done marginally better than Mccain, though a great deal better than Fuck-a-bee.  
  She won the NH debate and that had a good deal to do with her win.  People are making the "tears" moment out like she started bawling.  Her emotion welled up and her throat caught but then she recovered composure and smiled.  A moment, yes, but not enough to make over 4,000 people suddenly decide she's a better choice.  And many of us wonder how authentic that moment was.
  O is great on the stump.  He gives wonderful speeches and interacts very naturally with people.  His smile is authentic.  People like that.  But, he'll have to get much better at debates if he hopes to win this election.  
     

  by rainmanjr on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:48:43 AM PDT

•  Great diary

  Thanks.

  by Marcus Junius Brutus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:54:11 AM PDT

  •  thanks

    by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM PDT

•  Yep, that's a rec...

  ...any woman who has the guts to call herself a slut and not give a damn while also dissing MoDo and ripping Mrs. Obama for saying a vote for Edwards is wasted is more than ok in my book.

  Good stuff -- perfect change of pace diary from the norm.

  :)

  by Universal on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:05:01 AM PDT

  •  thanks

    by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:51:34 AM PDT

•  Lousy timing

  The candidate you want to take that close second look at, the one with the great record and the abiity to step into the job on Day One, the one you discounted automatically because of his ties to "Big-Wossis", has already withdrawn from the election.  Too bad, as two years from now America mightbe asking itself why they didn't give Joe Biden a fair shot at the job.

  by Quicklund on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:15:31 AM PDT

  •  it's too late to take a second look--he's out

    and I have no doubt he'll make a major contribution in someone's cabinet.

    by MmeVoltaire on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:52:35 AM PDT

    •  Or from the Senate

      I just had to get in my props for my fallen candidate.  :)

      No queston that in Democratic-led DC, he will have a role to play.

      by Quicklund on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:38:37 PM PDT