Oh no, my friends, the Democratic Party is a family, and the family is united. Thank you, Senator Clinton, for your gracious comments and your willingness to continue to stand with this party. The infighting is beginning in the Republican Party.
John McCain is between a rock and a hard place. You KNOW he's in trouble when he's boldy and profusely praising Hillary Clinton (someone the Republicans worked to destroy for more than a decade) and is hiding from being seen in public with George Bush.
Now McSame's economic advisors are getting in on the act. What is it they have to say about George Bush's economy?
I've always has such admiration for Hillary Rosen, it's only risen exponentially with this HuffPo piece:
So, I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her "Al Gore moment." And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.
My new hero, and I'm not fond of having heroes. I'm listening to her speech as I begin this diary, and I'm amazed that there are so many people who realize that the choice is not between
A) Person or
B) Principles,
But that this is about B) Principle AND C) Party, and that A) person doesn't matter.
There are the Clinton partisans who believe that the rules are to be sullied, bent, and thrown in the trash heap, depending on who's asking to have the rules violated and why.
I'm an Obama supporter. I have been since before S. Carolina. It was up until S. Carolina that I believed that I could be happy with either candidate, and would forgive Sen. Clinton's AUMF, vote for Kyl-Lieberman, and that I would suck back the refusal to ban cluster bombs (and that was the vote that's soul shattering to me. Clinton, again, voted with the Republicans on an action that is just incomprehensible). For supporting Sen. Obama, I was met with the criticisms that I'm a kool aid drinker, an Obamabot, a Judas - self-loathing woman owned by the patriarchy, that I'm an idealistic child who can't make rational decisions for myself, and that I'm starry eyed and don't know the difference between pretty words and real action. Those were the insults leveled at me by Dems supporting Clinton - not by Republicans.
Politicians (and I'll add pundits) who make threats against Presidential nominees
Until Barack Obama, I would have said that you have a better chance of winning a state lottery than getting the truth out of a politician. I've stood with Sen. Obama through thick and thin, I think many of us have. Why? When he speaks, I don't have to think about whether or not his comments are calculated. I don't have to worry about whether the statements have been triangulated. I don't have to worry about whether he thinks I'm so stupid, I won't know that he's pulling my leg. There's no calculation, no triangulation, no leg pulling. I'm sorry to see the drama unfolding in FL and the attempt to turn voters against Sen. Obama and the DNC. At some point, and hopefully soon, voters are going to have to ask if their trust was misplaced if the politicians they believe in are willing to lie to them, and manipulate them, for their own selfish purposes. Here's why the argument about 'disenfranchisement' doesn't work:
I’ll make this statement one last time and then I’ll hopefully never "utter" these words again. I gave up on the Clintons in S. Carolina. It was the final straw for me. I gave up on the Democratic Party for not standing up to them. I became an Independent, but I can’t walk away from the party completely. I was born a Democrat, and in my heart, I will probably always be one. I keep waiting for the party to show its courage (and with Barack Obama and Howard Dean’s help, it just may at some point in the future). What I saw after S. Carolina, was a man who wanted to change the face of politics being battered by politicians who couldn’t let go of the old ways. Because of his colleagues’ fear, Obama might have stood alone if it weren’t for the bravery of his supporters who refused to accept "politics as usual". Has this primary process engendered a bit of bitterness for some of us? You bet. Is it helpful to hang onto to it? Probably not.
(Update: Read this diary through CAREFULLY. I've supported Sen. Obama's campaign wholeheartedly. Think that through as you read and put down the red meat).
For so long, now, anyone who suggests that they believe that Sen. Clinton's behavior is leading not to the end of this race, but to a continuation of it - and possibly an attempt to damage Sen. Obama's chances, has been referred to as someone content to 'spread gloom', or is 'mirred in bitterness', 'unable to let go of a difficult election, and is only making matters worse'. For some of us, that's not the case. We not only believe in Sen. Obama, but we remember the Clinton 90s, and that not all of it was about the party. In fact, much of the Clinton 90s was about the Clintons, and if it benefited the party, what a stroke of luck!
First, Obama's campaign should stop believing what most of the press says, and start believing what Clinton says -- she isn't budging. If they don't mind the prospect of a divided convention, then fine -- if they do mind that prospect, they'll have to fight for their desired outcome. Clinton is now arguing that taking the fight to the convention is OK for the Democrats -- even noble. This argument won't be defeated if it is ignored -- Obama's camp will have to rebut.
I've been waiting for the diagnosis. Sen. Obama began to act as a therapist to the Democratic Party when he commented that Sen. Clinton had learned all the of wrong lessons from her days as First Lady, under attack by the Republican Right for being a 'controlling and calculating' woman. She was to be the 'co-president' and she and her husband offered the country a two-for-one deal. I was, at the time, a Democrat AND a bargain shopper, so it seemed like a good deal, to me. That's when I believed her to be a different person.
Here's the problem, not only did she learn the wrong lessons, but she's cultivated that behavior in her supporters, encouraged and affirmed it, even. The party, this primary season, has developed DSS, and it's hard to know how to cure it.
There's no 'after the jump' suspense here. As a woman, I want to make it clear that it's not MY belief that women aren't good enough to hold office. It's the belief of the Clinton camp, and apparently, the belief of a fair number of her supporters. I can only believe that it's this practice of embracing the mindset of 'empowered masculinity' that led Hillary Clinton to brazenly and unabashedly support an immoral and unjust war and to be unapologetic about it. Forgiveness is for girls. Apologies are for mama's boys.
It's this attitude that led her to attack her Democratic rival using Right Wing talking points. It's this attitude that's led her to become the darling of the Right Wing talking heads.
Luckily for the Democratic Party, and for America, it's the same attitude that will end up costing Clinton the election.
The NYTimes has an interesting blog article about the role Evan Bayh has played in the upcoming Tues. primary, most notably that this campaign has tested Bayh's leadership in the state.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aren’t the only politicians with a whole lot on the line in Indiana next Tuesday: Senator Evan Bayh — Democratic moderate, Hillary supporter, vice-presidential aspirant and Hoosier-state powerbroker — also has a future hanging in the balance. So, how’s it going? According to The Indianapolis Star’s political ace Matthew Tulley, not so well...
Somehow the media has become responsible for Sen. Obama’s ‘problems’ with Rev. Wright. Let’s ‘get real’ here. Now only is the media NOT responsible, but Sen. Obama didn’t do enough to put this problem behind him early on. How, in good conscience, can anyone blame the media? Let’s face it, the ugly truth we’re not talking about is the fact that African-Americans (and I am African-American) are all alike. We talk alike, we think alike, we behave the same way. Sen. Obama’s problem is that he tried to deny that fact early on and presented himself as a ‘new negro’. Why didn’t it work? Because there’s no such thing.
Sure, I'm supporing Obama, but I realize that it's now time to face facts. More states? Yes. More of the popular vote? Yes. More delegates? Yes. In the words of the illustrious candidate herself, 'so what'? Only a defeatist belives it's impossible for her to win, and she's no defeatist. Road to victory, Part 1:
Over at talking point memo, Observer2 have proven to be a BRILLIANT researcher. Here's the the blast from the past, Observer2 found:
"There's a real tug-of-war up here," said one House member. "Especially on this side, there are a lot of people who are terrified that all the character questions, all the negatives about Clinton that showed up in New York, make him so weak that a lot of people will lose their seats."
A prominent Senator, who also asked not to be identified, added, "lots of people are hearing from home, 'Keep it open, even if the odds make it look impossible,' because Clinton may self-destruct before the convention." As a result, predicted the Senator, who remains uncommitted, "it's not going to shift into cruise control for Bill Clinton very soon."
It’s so clear to me now that women are just jealous of me, and wish they could look like me. You’re probably jealous of me too. Sound familiar? I’m sure you’ve known at least ONE person like that over the course of your lifetime. If you thought THAT attitude was lousy, hang on. There’s now an intellectualized "prom queen" defense being offered to explain why Hillary Clinton hasn’t been able to ‘close the deal’ in getting ALL women to support her. According to Susan Shapiro Barash, women are either jealous of Hillary Clinton and threatened by the power she’s achieved, or we’re all doing the master’s bidding and we’re all too confused by the male patriarchy that keeps us held down to know any better.
A high-ranking labor supporter of Hillary Clinton is distributing to union leaders and to Democratic strategists a document detailing the radical activities of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, two former members of the '70s group the Weather Underground, who decades later, in Chicago, crossed paths with Barack Obama.
The document - a three-page emailed essay by Rick Sloan, communications director for the International Association of Machinists as Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) -- takes both literary and political license to outline what Sloan believes would be the thrust of a hypothetical Republican campaign against Obama focusing on his tangential connection to Ayers and Dohrn.
If you want to put a generous spin on the ABC debate, you might suggest that Stephanopolous and Gibson were "hopped up on testosterone" and itching to prove that they weren't in the tank for Sen. Obama. (I haven't heard the term 'hopped up' in a while and with the discussions of 60s radicals, I realized that I missed it). The most likely explanation, given GS's past role in the Clinton administration, is that he IS in the tank for Clinton, and Gibson was just along for the ride.
Here's the problem for George, and Charlie, the MSM/TM, and ultimately, Hillary Clinton.
