A week ago I expressed my hope that Senator Hillary Clinton would exit this historic race, gracefully, with dignity, after the last primaries today. A smart op-ed by Anna Holmes in the New York Times this past Sunday suggests one way Clinton might manage to do just that – starting with a speech that offers an expansive message for all women – especially for a future generation of women who could be energized and moved by her campaign, rather than deflated by it.

Holmes argues, "Of course there's been sexism throughout this campaign…. But at this point, keeping track of every tone-deaf criticism matters less than delivering an active, impassioned response. Senator Clinton is the one woman in America right now who has the perspective, and the responsibility, to give that response."

Senator Clinton could deliver a rousing speech that challenges us to examine the structural sexism in our media, culture and politics. She could challenge the media to bring on more women of all ages, races, and views, as Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell recently called on her newspaper to do.

While there has been a laser-like focus on the resentment between the Clinton and Obama camps, what is hopeful about moving forward is that the resentment – or even rage felt by some of Clinton's most ardent supporters – is directed in large part toward media sexism rather than Senator Barack Obama's candidacy. And that is as it should be, because if we're going to build a strong progressive coalition, and rebuild this nation, we must stand together. That means refusing to engage in what some have called "the oppression sweepstakes." It also requires a capacity to see race and gender in multi-dimensional terms. "The real question," as Shankar Vedantam writes in the Washington Post, "… comes down to whether groups that face discrimination focus their disappointment and resentment at discrimination – or at each other." As Betsy Reed wrote in a recent Nation cover story, "sexism may be more casually accepted [while] racism, which is often coded, is more insidious and trickier to confront."

As passions cool, and Clinton supporters refocus on what is at stake in this pivotal election, there's an enormous opening for Senator Obama to win back these voters. He has already started speaking concretely to women's issues broadly defined (as they should be): the economy, healthcare, education, ending the war. And who in their right mind could support McCain when it comes to issues which will improve women's lives – across class and race?

And in the months and years ahead, Senator Clinton could highlight policies that challenge structural sexism – whether with regard to women's reproductive rights and healthcare, or pay equity and equal access to positions of power. She could become a bold leader in the Senate on issues of health, education, women's rights, civil rights, labor rights and the many issues that impact the lives of women.

This historic campaign of rousing highs and distressing lows has vividly illustrated the need for a true dialogue on sexism and gender – one that would counter Geraldine Ferraro's venomous and wrongheaded comments in her Boston Globe op-ed , and speak to the kind of yearning and new energy described by Amanda Fortini in a New York magazine article, "The past few months have been like an extended consciousness-raising session, to use a retro phrase that would have once made most of us cringe. We've parsed the gender politics of the campaign with other women in the office, at parties, over e-mail, and now we're starting to parse the gender politics of our lives. This is, admittedly, depressing: How can we be confronting the same issues, all these years later? But it's also exciting. It feels as if a window has been opened in a stuffy, long-sealed room. There is a thrill at the collective realization. Now the question is, what next?"

Senator Clinton can make an important contribution in the years ahead by speaking with conviction and passion about sexism in American life.

Comments (184)

1. Don't count on it. Making an impassioned plea against sexism - which would be useful - would have a political cost that I don't think the Clinton's are prepared to pay. Politicans don't carry prophetic messages, particularly politicans with the integrity issues of the Clinton's.

   Posted by srjenkins at 06/03/2008 @ 2:13pm

2. I would love to see her do that, Katrina. But I'm not optimistic for a variety of reasons. You see, in this election I learned that while sexism is bad, racism among feminists is worse. What feminists have had a problem understanding from the word go in this campaign is that you're asking a lot of women of color when you ask them to embrace your issues and your candidates while offering us nothing in return and not even considering our struggles. I can't tell you how many black women have cursed me out over the years for describing myself as a feminist, and it's been mostly because it's seen as a white woman's movement. And white women have done nothing to change that unfortunately. What was expected of us as women of color was to immediately rally 'round Hillary Clinton in the name of a sisterhood that has refused to address our struggle. Because of this, I stopped calling myself a feminist not too long after Gloria Steinem's New York Times column. I finally had to admit that the feminist movement as it's currently constructed has no place for me in it. If Hillary Clinton addresses that issue and tries to bring women of color into the feminist fold in addition to making the media address sexism, she'll have done a good thing. But somehow, I just don't see it.

   Posted by edwriter at 06/03/2008 @ 2:17pm

3. >>starting with a speech that offers an expansive message for all women – especially for a future generation of women who could be energized and moved by her campaign, rather than deflated by it.<<

   Here we go again!

   The world is made of different people of different gender and different colors. And it's A-OK.

   That should be what makes us EQUAL!

   To give a speech to women is admit yet another side of Hillary's hypocrisy as she herself said her campaign had nothing to do with being a woman.

   Let's not insult women and confuse ANGER with anything else.

   Posted by digit at 06/03/2008 @ 2:26pm

4. While I believe this issue should be discussed openly and honestly, the situation Clinton faces now might make discretion the better part of valor, at least for a time.

   The problem is, she can't come off sounding like she is the quintessential victim, the possibility exists that she can actually turn things to the reversing of gains.

   I think that after the election, with a stronger D congress and a D president, there will be a resurgent interest in Human Rights. Gender, race, ethicity and religious problems will be addressed, and if we keep the politicians feet to the fire, great gains can be made. It is going to take work, but we can do it. The greatest obstacles we encounter, are the ones we set before ourselves, by ourselves.

   Posted by rasputin195 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:26pm

5. kmadson-If you really haven't heard other politicians being personally attacked like you claim that Hillary has then you need to move out of your cave and buy a computer,tv,and go out and meet some people.Reality is that every election is about making attacks,personal and otherwise,against politicians who are running.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 06/03/2008 @ 2:30pm

6. More than likely, she touchs on it...

   and then sends out MacAuliffe, Ickes, Wolfson, not to take on sexism from the Media...but from the Obama campaign!

   Oh, they may bring up sexism all right...but as a bludgeon against her political enemies and that's going to include more than "the Media".

   To think anything else is naive. Especially from a magazine (and its editors) who duly noted how the race card was played....why do you think the "gender card" would be played any differently?

   Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 2:30pm

7. And it pisses me off no end, that we all have to sink to play to and smooth over the poor widdle Clinton white women,low info, if not out and out racist backers "outrage". What about our outrage--what about the outrage of the African Americans who witnessed the Clintons stoop to every lousy stinking transparent dirty lie and tactic to pander to the worst in people, while Obama tred water patiently for her to get over her sulking resent? Everytime Obama treated Clinton with respect and generousity, she and hers kicked him in the teeth. No way am I getting down in the gutter to crawl for the Clintons and their ignorant supporters because it is just more of the same letting them off the hook with no accountability, just. like. Bush.

   Posted by Lil at 06/03/2008 @ 2:30pm

8. Libzsuck = socialist mole

   Posted by Benchrest at 06/03/2008 @ 2:33pm

9. Everytime Obama treated Clinton with respect and generousity, she and hers kicked him in the teeth.

   Posted by Lil at 06/3/2008

   So true. So true.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:34pm

10. <i>You know what---WHAT SEXISM?</i>

    Wow. Lil? What's the weather like on the planet you're living on? The sexism and racism during this primary season have been pretty well documented from numerous sources. No matter what your feelings about Clinton and how she treated your candidate, it must be very hard to look at this campaign and not see that. Now, if you want to try and set up a chart and decide "Was it more racist than sexist" or "Was Clinton meaner than the sexist comments" or something like that, then get your spreadsheet and go, but to deny its existence altogether is beyond my abilities.

    Posted by cyrano at 06/03/2008 @ 2:36pm

11. "Politicans don't carry prophetic messages, particularly politicans with the integrity issues of the Clinton's." Posted by srjenkins at 06/3/2008 |

    Follow the power & the glory & the money... HRC will use women as long as women get her these Big 3. She & her husband & her big bucks advisors have stooped to outright ludicrous lies (e.g. Bosnian sniper fire) & unadorned racism (e.g. hard working whites) to get these Big 3.

    The pardon-selling Clintons do not give a diddler's damn about anyone but themselves. They have made this most painfully clear, repeatedly, throughout this campaign.

    Obama & Co are smarter & their personal dignity is, at the very least, rather a bit more than just political shtick. The Clintons may very well get their extortionate Sopranoesque extortionate price (pay off us & mark & harry our $20 million or else), but the rest of the legacy the Clintons will have to work very hard for.

    Let's not, however, hold our breaths too long for that to happen, lest we expire. Ask Bob Reich, he'll tell you. Reich knows them longer & better than any of us.

    Posted by sloper at 06/03/2008 @ 2:49pm

12. I guess daydreaming is fun.

    Posted by jsens at 06/03/2008 @ 2:55pm

13. rasputin195

    good one.

    careful if they offer you cake.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 2:59pm

14. Hillary used her sex in the campaign (cleavage showing, specific calls to get behind a woman for president, etc.). So, its a disingenous to moan if you think other people used it against her. She should have campaigned not as a woman but as an American and she would have done better.

    When and if Obama is also defeated he and a lot of others will blame racism for it. 'A black man can't win in racist America' will be the cry.

    Clear thinking people though will wonder if both of their defeats can't be just laid to their lack of speaking to the issues that matter to Americans. If either a woman or a black can produce the message that America wants to hear then they can get elected.

    Posted by namron8255 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:10pm

15. kmadson,

    Senator Clinton ran a dirty, race baiting divisive campaign. She tried to pit middle class white women against African Americans. And that is unfortunate. In addition to her unsavory tactics, she is also guilty of running an ineeffective campaign with no coherent message for a very long time. For every name she was called Obama was also unfairly attacked (as a muslim, as a radical etc.) and moreover, more voters voted against him because of his race than against her because of her gender. We need to stop this nonsense about what was "done to Hillary". She and her lying loyalists dished out way more than they received. I understand we need a message of unity, but the Nation editors do a disservice to the truth by continuing this farce that sexism was why Hillary lost.

    One final note: How is it that sexism cost Hillary the election and yet she still claims to be the stronger candidate than Obama? Seems to me if the democrats were not ready to vote for a woman, is the rest of the country? It just so happens that the west virginians, kentuckians and ohioans are the least sexist people right? Everyone else, including the Prius driving latte sipping "elites" are sexist. As are the college students and African Americans. Get real, HRC has pulled a fast one one country and the Nation bought it hook, line and sinker. Just like the NY Times, I may have to reconsider my subscription to a journal that so thoroughly lacks in origina, critical thinking.

    Posted by rasalula at 06/03/2008 @ 3:13pm

16. namron8255,

    what's the message? More war in Iraq? More tax breaks for the rich? Forget about schools, infrastucture and jobs and focus on gays? Forget about helping the middle class and build more prisons?

    What's the message man?

    Posted by rasalula at 06/03/2008 @ 3:18pm

17. There was a comment that contained ->but her policies and ideas were lost in the personal attacks........ IF your candidate had addressed the issues LIKE she should have instead of getting into the mudslinging business maybe she would have come out on top. She chose to play diry when it was not necessary and it cost her and her supporters. What she got she brought on herself.......maybe if you would open your eyes and STOP looking for problems where there are none, you would see that her biggest enemy was herself.

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 06/03/2008 @ 3:25pm

18. I would love to see a discussion of structural sexism, as you suggest. And do agree Hillary has often been treated awfully.

    However wouldn't be surprised if any such discussion has to proceed without Senator Clinton. I don't know, but as a Senator can't remember Hillary being much of an active advocate for issues of importance to women, particularly poor women. More often she seems to have adopted the idea as a woman she had to show a macho toughness and belligerence. Seems to be precisely the wrong response because it reinforces that mentality.

    Also when discussing sexism it might help to see women within a broader context. As the son of an Argentinian mother who sole raised me and my sisters, suggest women can see themselves as Latinos who are women, Muslims who are women or African Americans who are women. Their understanding of themselves may be a lot more complicated than what is assumed too often. They may all experience sexism, my mother certainly did, but their understanding of themselves may differ strongly based on other factors of bigotry, repression, and exclusion. Women are also workers, mothers, wives, divorced, poor, well off and their responses as women can bee complicated.

    Too often seems to me from my own experience growing up, it doesn't add much to any discussion of sexism if it doesn't take into consideration other forms of structural repression and abuse.

    Charles Martinez-Pia

    Posted by cmsandia at 06/03/2008 @ 3:31pm

19. >>The sexism and racism during this primary season have been pretty well documented from numerous sources.<<

    Well, the ONLY sexist and racist comments came from, you guessed, Hillary's camp.

    I am not aware of any sexist comments or remarks that Sen. Obama made. Are you?

    Posted by digit at 06/03/2008 @ 3:42pm

20. Rasalula:

    Message #1 was don't campaign as a woman which is sexist (right?) but if you do you don't have a gender leg to stand on.

    Message #2 was if you campaign on liberal beliefs and America doesn't embrace them as you do then don't blame sexism or racism blame yourselves for not selling the country on your ideas.

    Posted by namron8255 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:43pm

21. >>We had a female candidate this time around, and due to the fact that she wasn't female enough ...for some, she lost.<<

    No - she lost because she's not HONEST enough.

    If she wanted to appear more 'female' (whatever that means to YOU) she certainly wouldn't go around doing shots in a bar trying to prove she's tough as nail, eh?

    From a marketing standpoint that is NOT an image that evokes the nurturing, passionate, caring and intelligent qualities of a woman.

    Posted by digit at 06/03/2008 @ 3:47pm

22. Katrina,

    Hillary Clinton is not the person to be delivering speeches about sexism after the way she ran her campaign. If she had run it with a little more class, then maybe she could deliver such a speech with a little integrity, but now, she's lost most of her credibility

    ...I voted for her and would gladly change my vote to Obama. She lost me when she started hammering on Obama after he was somewhat gracious and cut her some serious slack when she was asked about being under fire in a war zone. She seems to have lost sight of what she is running for and got caught up in the muddying of ones opponent if you can't beat them on the issues.

    Another point that nobody pays any attention to is the fact that Hillary was the one to beat early in this primary. The nomination was pretty much hers to lose and she did. She has no one to blame but herself for not running a better campaign.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:50pm

23. Some key questions on "sexism" and Hillary's campaign---

    If it was "sexism" that got Geraldine Ferraro to resign over her comments about Obama...

    Was it "sexism" that got Mark Penn to resign, after he was found promoting CAFTA, while Hillary was on the stump opposed to it?

    Was it "sexism" that got Bill Shaheen to resign over his "Obama selling drugs" comment?

    As well...was it "sexist" to show the Bosnian video and the little girl with the flowers, when Hillary was claiming FOUR TIMES that she "came under sniper fire"?

    Was it "sexist" to note that Hillary obviously had no plan for post-Super Tuesday if she didn't win it handily?

    Was it "sexist" to note that her staff were spending money like drunken sailors, and she had to loan herself money TWICE, and the campaign is STILL in the hole to $20 Million?

    and finally....was it "sexism" that made Hillary vote for the war....still support it heartedly uptil 2007, when it began to look like a liability for her in the primaries?

    And how in this "sexist" context, did she get SO close to winning the nomination....when MEN like John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, etc....were left in the dust months ago???

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 3:51pm

24. "..I think that after the election, with a stronger D congress and a D president, there will be a resurgent interest in Human Rights. Gender, race, ethicity and religious problems will be addressed, and if we keep the politicians feet to the fire, great gains can be made. It is going to take work, but we can do it. The greatest obstacles we encounter, are the ones we set before ourselves, by ourselves.

    Posted by rasputin195 at 06/3/2008

    Sounds like another well intentioned but Jimmy Carter II presidency on the way to us...and we tank again...perhaps this is just what we need to bring about another Ronald Reagan to the scene and rebuild the conservative base back and in 4 years repair the country should Obie find himself in the WH, wondering, "Now what do I do?"...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/03/2008 @ 4:00pm

25. >>I am not aware of any sexist comments or remarks that Sen. Obama made. Are you?<<

    Digit, the premise is not that the Obama campaign is a sexist attack machine, but that sexism in today's society is a harmful and pervasive element, and that during this campaign that was made very apparent, and that Senator Clinton is in a unique position to bring corrective attention to bear on that. I'm an Edwards guy, so maybe I've got no room to talk here, but I'm really tired of the vitriol between the Clinton and Obama supporters. It makes the baby Jesus cry.

    Posted by cyrano at 06/03/2008 @ 4:06pm

26. >>I am not aware of any sexist comments or remarks that Sen. Obama made. Are you?<<

    Digit, the premise is not that the Obama campaign is a sexist attack machine, but that sexism in today's society is a harmful and pervasive element, and that during this campaign that was made very apparent, and that Senator Clinton is in a unique position to bring corrective attention to bear on that. I'm an Edwards guy, so maybe I've got no room to talk here, but I'm really tired of the vitriol between the Clinton and Obama supporters. It makes the baby Jesus cry.

    Posted by cyrano at 06/03/2008 @ 4:06pm

27. She lost me when she started hammering on Obama after he was somewhat gracious and cut her some serious slack when she was asked about being under fire in a war zone.

    yes Wolfgang, I noticed that too. they left him an opening big enough to drive a Hummer through, and being the class act he is, he declined to press his advantage.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 4:09pm

28. Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

    Yeah, good thing Republicans and conservatives never call anybody on the other side names,huh, Darin? As an "objective observer" of course?

    (BTW, here's where you start to backpedal and say "Sure, they BOTH do it"...failing to note that you overlooked "both" in your original post.)

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 4:13pm

29. JOMAMMA

    right, the present occupant of the white house has been so sterling.

    28% approval. that's success for you isn't it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 4:14pm

30. Hey Happy....

    who said (in response to "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?")....

    "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . .

    but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

    and then attacked his opponent for "wanting to talk to terrorist groups"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 4:15pm

31. >>perhaps this is just what we need to bring about another Ronald Reagan to the scene and rebuild the conservative base back and in 4 years repair the country should<<

    LOL! Reagan...The 'trickle down' economic...KING 'let them eat cake".

    Reagan, the one who allowed sale of arms for hostages.

    Reagan, a true bastion of work-for-peanuts.

    Hey, you know who likes Reagan? Monkeys, they work for peanuts...

    Posted by digit at 06/03/2008 @ 4:16pm

32. Posted by Mask at 06/3/2008

    Remind me to never piss you off.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/03/2008 @ 4:17pm

33. It makes the baby Jesus cry.

    Posted by cyrano at 06/3/2008

    Ain't that the truth.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 4:22pm

34. Marybretbrad***What did they say about Bush? Idiot, stupid, coke-head, racist,

    Richard Perle, foreign policy adviser: "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."

    David Frum, former speechwriter: "Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. … Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show."

    Laura Bush, spouse: "George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action."

    Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary: "The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection."

    Bush may not have been born stupid, but he has achieved stupidity, and now he wears it as a badge of honor. Since college, he has spilled with contempt for knowledge, equating learning with snobbery and making a joke of his own anti-intellectualism. ("[William F. Buckley] wrote a book at Yale; I read one," he quipped at a black-tie event.)

    http://www.slate.com/id/2100064/

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 4:26pm

35. marybretbrad***Democrats are far worse when it comes to personally attacking candidates than Republicans are.

    They also are more selfish. Got anymore knee-jerk generalizations for us?

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 4:30pm

36. >>sexism in today's society is a harmful and pervasive element<<

    That is unrelated to these events. As you worded it, it meant/implied that Obama and/or other candidates used sexism or sexist remarks to gain some sort of advantage.

    >>...and that during this campaign that was made very apparent<<

    Again, by whom? The only people I know that made it apparent are Clinton and her supporters.

    >> and that Senator Clinton is in a unique position to bring corrective attention to bear on that. <<

    Too simplistic and I totally disagree.

    While we are on the subject: sexism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with equal rights. We need to really give words their proper meaning.

    If you are talking about EQUAL RIGHTS, racism, bigotry and discrimination then, the fact that we are still facing all of it today is precisely because each group gives it a color, a gender and a particular sexual orientation (in the case of gays). as though each existed in a separate, disconnected universe. While that tactic has been used by many politicians and group leaders to gain votes and support (as Hillary is doing now) it is a divisive, ignorant path which actually UNDERMINES the actual progress in eliminating all of the above.

    Thus, it is USED for personal gain by vote-hungry politicians.

    The more we give racism and driscrimination a color and a gender the more WE DIVIDE the COUNTRY! Stop making the shortsighted argument that one particular discrimination is somehow of a different nature than another. It is not!

    Racism, discrimination and bigotry are colorblind and gender blind.

    >>I'm an Edwards guy, so maybe I've got no room to talk here,<<

    I like Edwards. I hope he gets tapped for AG! He would kick butt in that position and may actually bring back some real equality in our Justice DPT.

    >> but I'm really tired of the vitriol between the Clinton and Obama supporters.<<

    I agree but, I have to say...it's mostly the Clintonites that use vitriolic arguments (see Ickes for example...not to mention the posts herein).

    >> It makes the baby Jesus cry.<<

    Let's leave Baby J out of this, Ok? :)

    Posted by digit at 06/03/2008 @ 4:33pm

37. marybretbrad***Balrog, is your point that Bush wasn't treated worse than Hillary because he deserved it and she didn't?

    No, my point is that you're full of shit.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 4:33pm

38. MBB-Both sides are equally as bad when it comes to making personal attacks.These differences between liberals and conservatives or democrats and republicans that you try and come up with simply don't play out in the real world.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/03/2008 @ 4:33pm

39. MBB-That Bush has been treated worse than Clinton is not an indisputable point.It's about the same and they deserve most of it.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/03/2008 @ 4:35pm

40. Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

    Well the problem is Darin did you hear what Bush said about McCain? You guys are no better or worse. Bush was treated worse than Hillary but so was Kerry. Both sides are equally as guilty. Bush called McCains daughter an illegitimate child for God's sake.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 4:40pm

41. "Senator Clinton has been talking with knowledge and passion about issues concerning women for decades and hardly needs a neophyte patrician like the above author to suggest otherwise."

    posted by Euler at 06/3/2008

    Don't know who the "patrician" is supposed to be, but raised by a poor Argentinian women in the late forties and fifties, you have to be kidding. What I wrote came from our family experience which affected my mother as a combination of anti Hispanic bigotry and sexism, a woman who spent her entire work life as a bank clerk, having to put up with disrespectful and openly abusive male managers because as single mother he needed the income to raise her kids.

    What I posted had to do with nott reducing how women react to a single set of issues.

    Charlie M

    Posted by cmsandia at 06/03/2008 @ 4:47pm

42. Posted by edwriter at 06/3/2008

    ED, my sista, you will always have a place.

    Posted by ACook at 06/03/2008 @ 5:01pm

43. Digit: Thank you for a reasonable and reasoned response. I hope I can keep those standards.

    >>That is unrelated to these events. As you worded it, it meant/implied that Obama and/or other candidates used sexism or sexist remarks to gain some sort of advantage.<<

    I don't know when I worded this, I looked back on the comments I'd made to try and find that. What I meant for people to infer was that there was a sexist element in this campaign. There was also a racist element, an ageist element and a very strong classist element, but none of those are relevant to this article.

    >>The only people I know that made it apparent are Clinton and her supporters.<<

    I think we must be misunderstanding each other here, because I cannot believe that you don't think any of the below incidents are free of sexist bias.

    Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic: "She's never going to get out of our faces. ... She's like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won't stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30dowd.html?hp

    The 527 Group "C.U.N.T.": http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/005124.php

    The Axe Effect: http://bp2.blogger.com/__XCWUd8FFjQ/R7BMBCqgOlI/AAAAAAAACpk/u2HFsCZfvb0/ s1600-h/AxeHillary.jpg

    >>While we are on the subject: sexism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with equal rights. We need to really give words their proper meaning.<<

    You're absolutely right. Sexism is not about equal rights. That would be 'egalitarianism'. Sexism is about behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex or gender. (Merriam Webster)

    Did you mean to say that Racism is color blind?

    >>Stop making the shortsighted argument that one particular discrimination is somehow of a different nature than another.<<

    I don't think I made this argument either. I posited, in my response to Lil, that she was perhaps better served making her argument that way than saying that there was no sexism, which may have caused some confusion.

    Posted by cyrano at 06/03/2008 @ 5:04pm

44. Also when discussing sexism it might help to see women within a broader context. As the son of an Argentinian mother who sole raised me and my sisters, suggest women can see themselves as Latinos who are women, Muslims who are women or African Americans who are women. Their understanding of themselves may be a lot more complicated than what is assumed too often. They may all experience sexism, my mother certainly did, but their understanding of themselves may differ strongly based on other factors of bigotry, repression, and exclusion. Women are also workers, mothers, wives, divorced, poor, well off and their responses as women can be complicated.

    Too often seems to me from my own experience growing up, it doesn't add much to any discussion of sexism if it doesn't take into consideration other forms of structural repression and abuse.

    Charles Martinez-Pia

    I think that you made my point better than I did, sir. If we're going to talk about feminism, we need to talk about it from the standpoint of all women, not just the ones currently running the feminist movement,

    Posted by edwriter at 06/03/2008 @ 5:07pm

45. Maybe instead of focusing once more on the fact that she has an innie where other candidates have an outtie she could instead focus on attacking both prejudices which have been so blatantly overpowering in this election. Racism is still alive and well and Clinton's ability to leverage it in states like West Virginia is one of the prime reasons why she was able to keep herself in this race as long as she has. Why inspire a generation of women when you can inspire an entire generation to cast off the prejudices of old and step forward into a brighter future where we all realize that underneath the skin and the biology we are all people trying to solve some of the most important challenges our nation has ever faced?

    "Senator Clinton can make an important contribution in the years ahead by speaking with conviction and passion about the myriad of prejudices in American life," is how the last sentence of this article really should read.

    Posted by agentweez at 06/03/2008 @ 5:14pm

46. Geez, you mean I have to send yet another incarnation of ignorant, all-caps "LibZ" to the ignore bin to wail and gibber with his/her many clones?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/03/2008 @ 5:15pm

47. Bush never said that. People generally believe Karl Rove was responsible for the rumor, but Bush never said it. If he had, McCain could have made political hay out of the fact that Bush didn't know his daughter was adopted.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/200

    Sorry but you know what I mean. Republicans treat other Republicans and Democrats the same. I didn't mean Bush actually said it I meant the Bush campaign, I should have stated that. But yes my whole point is that Republicans are just as vicious as Democrats can be.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 5:20pm

48. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/3/2008

    Well said.

    Pobody's nerfect.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/03/2008 @ 5:24pm

49. The curious thing is that I am taking full deep breaths today for the first time since this campaign started. It was my opinion that from day one, Hilary Clinton would not be able to win the White house. She is too polarizing a figure, to representative for the hatred of the extreme right for the parsing of the word "is". Bill Clinton, for all the good he did, was a noose around her neck. The most salient criticism was Mitt Romney who stated that the last thing we needed was Bill with too much time on his hands wondering around the White house. Would we have selected her as our nominee, we would surely have lost to whichever Republican candidate.

    I honestly do no think that the sexist remarks that hounded her upset her campaign any more than the racist remarks that hounded Obama upset his campaign. Yes there were sexist remarks, and yes there were racist remarks. But politics is a dirty business. Obama is going to get attacked by a slick attack machine and we need to come together to build a shield around him by funding his campaign, and demonstrating the need to change this country. Hilary can lead the way in this endeavor by making herself his biggest fan. Biggest fan in a very public demonstration of support. By campaigning for him. By persuading her supporters that it is imperative to elect Obama. Imperative for the Supreme Court which will be impacted by the next president in a substantial fashion. Imperative to stop the war and bring our troops home. Imperative to reform the health care system. Imperative to change the tone in Washington and put our country on the right track. Imperative to reform the tax code. Imperative to rebuild the Federal government that has been so badly decimated by the Bush years. Imperative to restore our good name among the Community of Nations. Imperative to tackle the energy crisis we face and finally rid us of the dependence we have on foreign oil. Imperative to tackle in a scientific fashion the problem of global warming. Imperative to restore a scientific approach to scientific problems. Imperative to restore balance in the Federal Judiciary. Imperative to rebuild our infrastructure.

    Come on now people. Its time to get over ourselves and get Obama elected.

    Posted by nchasan at 06/03/2008 @ 5:35pm

50. Posted by Euler at 06/3/2008 with Obama, we will have an empty suit - who gives a good speech

    As opposed to an empty suit which gives terrible speeches and makes poor decisions based on shoddy information as we have currently?

    Posted by agentweez at 06/03/2008 @ 5:37pm

51. Nice post and well said, nchasan!

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 5:38pm

52. The fact that some people, outside of and not related to, Obama's campaign have made this into a sexist issue, is proof of what I said.

    As long as we give labels, ANY labels to ignorant, bigoted and racist behavior NOTHING will change.

    >>Did you mean to say that Racism is color blind?<<

    Yes! Any group of people can be racist against any other group. What difference does it make?

    If we are to have a future as a smart, forward thinking and truly democratic nation, we MUST eradicate the thinking, the processes and the 'habits' that give power to racism, discrimination and bigotry against anyone, in any place at any time.

    Posted by digit at 06/03/2008 @ 5:43pm

53. "Why inspire a generation of women when you can inspire an entire generation to cast off the prejudices of old and step forward into a brighter future where we all realize that underneath the skin and the biology we are all people trying to solve some of the most important challenges our nation has ever faced?"

    Posted by agentweez at 06/3/2008

    For one, it's not that simple. It's not necessarily about biology, it goes much deeper than that. Prejudices of any kind are an affliction to the human soul. It is an outward manifestation of what a person lacks in themselves. And finding the right cure is not easy.

    Posted by ACook at 06/03/2008 @ 5:44pm

54. I think a positive aspect of the convergence of the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton candidicies in the same year is that the American public has been given the opportunity to gain more insight into what the Democrat party, and liberalism, is really all about.

    Penalty flags for racism and sexism are being thrown so fast and furious from all directions that it is impossible to keep up with it. All generated, raised and manufactured by Democrats. It has been a feeding frenzy beyond belief. The side of the political spectrum that declares itself to be so enlighted about either of the two "isms" is the side that raises these questions over and over and over and over and over again.

    Questions that are raised at the expense of analysis or comparison of these candidates qualifications, belief and policies in the areas of say: National security/defense, foreign affairs, economic policy, education policy, to name a few.

    These things are brought up sometimes, but only during the brief intermissions from the three ring circus that the Democrat party is engaged in.

    Don't belive it? Then consider that somewhere on this website, (and no I don't have the link even though crabwalk and Lillian require it) I saw commentary one time complaining how the first Black to run for President and the first Woman to run for President were "pitted" against each other.

    How could they be "pitted" against each other? They each independently decided to run for the office of President. Who pit them against each other? When did that happen?

    This whole circumstance is an amazing thing to see, and what my hope would be is that enough Americans have now had the opportunity to see what the Democrat party is all about, and that when they go to the voting booth they will not oppose a candidate because of their race or gender, but because they are Democrat.

    I hope that the first female President of the United States is a Republican. I hope that the first Black President of the United States is a Republican.

    I thought a few years ago we were headed that way, that President Condoleeza Rice would be inaugurated in January of 2009. I think the reason that has not happened is that she has seen how her boss, President Bush, recieves daily and sometimes hourly crucification, and she decided that no job (even the highest office in the land) would be worth having to go through that.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2008 @ 5:47pm

55. I'm still not sure I understand why the Clinton campaign has been allowed to repeatedly make allusions to race in this campaign but all the feminists want to talk about is how poorly Senator Clinton has been treated by this vast "male-wing(?)" media conspiracy against her because of her gender. Unbeknownst to Mrs. Clinton there are actually quite a few of us " working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, who had not completed college" who aren't supporting her.

    Posted by agentweez at 06/03/2008 @ 5:50pm

56. In that case, I understand the confusion, Digit. We're having two different conversations.

    Posted by cyrano at 06/03/2008 @ 5:55pm

57. THIS CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN ABOUT PERSONALLY ATTACKING THE FIRST VIABLE FEMALE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO HER IDEAS. It sickens me that this is lost, even on you.

    Posted by kmadson at 06/3/2008

    More PC-Liberal retardation.

    Don't call me names it hurts my feelings!

    If the worst thing that ever happened to me in my life was having people think of me as a bitch, or a vampire, I'd be a HAPPY3 person.

    So does that mean once I've dissected all of her so-called "ideas" I can THEN call her a bitch? Or do I have to go with something more gender neutral, like asshole? Or do you want me to go to the other side of the spectrum and call her a dickhead?

    You've never seen somebody attacked so heavily? I HATE Bush, but he has been called about every shitty name in the book (and he deserves every single one just like Hill-dawg).

    WHEN DID OUR COUNTRY BECOME SO FUCKING WHINY?

    Posted by madlib at 06/03/2008 @ 5:56pm

58. Posted by LibsWarnedU at 06/3/2008

    Geez, you're good when you want to be!

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/03/2008 @ 5:57pm

59. I haven't, as of yet, heard anyone say something to the effect of "if that woman is elected she'll have the entire administration filled with her 'girlfriends.'" I have, however, heard pretty much the exact same claim leveled at Obama in regards to his race and the likelihood that he'll only appoint black people.

    Of course, to be fair, I have heard comments about hormones and the like regarding Clinton.

    The point should be that this election has exposed and laid bare scars which, while perhaps somewhat healed, are still sensitive and disfiguring. It shouldn't be about the white woman or the black man or the old white man it should be about 3 very different candidates discussing 3 very different views on where our country needs to go from here on out in post-Bush America.

    If she's going to open a dialogue about one ism all I'm saying is that perhaps she had open a dialogue about the multitude of negative -isms we're still facing in 2008.

    Posted by agentweez at 06/03/2008 @ 6:04pm

60. As "The Nation" carried some of the slimiest attacks on Clinton; calling her a racist on the most non existant of grounds; they have a hell of a lot of nerve declaring how She should take the opportunity to demonstrate good behavior.

    Posted by Amosduncan at 06/03/2008 @ 6:07pm

61. I don't mean to nitpick, but I see the issue of dirty tricks as separate from personal attacks. The campaigns fight dirty against each other, and that is one thing, but you never see the candidates engaging in the name calling.

    I originally responded to the ludicrous statement that no other politician has been attacked as personally as Hillary Clinton has. I mentioned Bush as an obvious counter example and Mask immediately changed the subject to Reps vs. Dems and baited me with talk of backpedaling. Unfortunately, I took the bait.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

    Yeah I saw the first part. Mask does have a certain eloquence about his baiting techniques.

    "The campaigns fight dirty against each other, and that is one thing, but you never see the candidates engaging in the name calling."

    In response to the name calling charge other than elitist I haven't really seen too much actual name-calling. It's not like Obama came out on stage and called Hillary a haggard old fool and then Hillary called Obama a total D-Bag. Most of this election period was about the campaigns and people in the campaigns throwing out stupid comments.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 6:12pm

62. We Were Right

    http://www.votenic.com

    Posted by votenic at 06/03/2008 @ 6:14pm

63. BARRACK MILHOUSE OSAMA JUST CLINCHED YOUR NOMINATION AND YOUR ULTIMATE DEFEAT....WHAT A JOY IT WILL BE TO CRUSH B.O.

    Posted by libzsuck at 06/3/2008

    It's really hard not to respond with an ad hominem attack, but I will simply dispassionately note that you are about the biggest moron I ever see posting around here. See? No vitriol. Just objective truth.

    Seriously, though, since we're on the subject of -isms, this is the other aspect of racism that has been working against Obama: idiots like libzsuck who insist on calling him "Barack Hussein Osama." These are the same people who threatened to boycott Dunkin' Donuts because Rachel Ray's paisley scarf reminded them of Palestinians.

    Apparently, since the 1940's, some of us have progressed from hating all Japanese people to hating all Muslim people. Way to go! I just hope this sort of mindless bigotry doesn't bring us four more years of bad policy in the form of a McCain presidency.

    Posted by Haldane at 06/03/2008 @ 6:22pm

64. Obama has plenty of specifics, have you not gone to his website?

    Posted by johnny canuck at 06/03/2008 @ 6:38pm

65. Haldane,

    Consider that "freedom fries" have nothing to do with muslims. This act of congressional solidarity against our arch-nemeses in France and the examples you cited like the "terrorist scarf" are simply emblematic of the bigger problem of ignorant nationalism that we've dealt with over the last decade. We have had a backslide in terms of social progressivism in the last few years despite the claims of the right about us liberals and our "politically correct war" on American life. Look at the Coulters of the world. Hate is being prepackaged and sold to the American people by the conservative right and in many cases they're buying it and wearing it like an adornment or a designer shirt.

    Posted by agentweez at 06/03/2008 @ 6:40pm

66. Haldane***idiots like libzsuck who insist on calling him "Barack Hussein Osama

    And then feign innocence with a "What? That's his name, isn't it?" like they merely used it to distinguish him from all the other Barak Obama's that are running for President.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 6:44pm

67. TELL THAT TO THE PEOPLE JUMPING OUT OF THE TOWERS ON 9/11 MURDERED BY ISLAMO-NAZIS THAT BARRACK"NOT THAT HUSSEIN" OSAMA WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO....

    Posted by libzsuck at 06/3/2008

    You just proved his point you mindless idiot. You can't differentiate between a normal peaceful Muslim and a religious fanatic like those Christians who kill in the name of God.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 6:48pm

68. These are the same people who threatened to boycott Dunkin' Donuts because Rachel Ray's paisley scarf reminded them of Palestinians.

    you are misinformed Haldane.

    it was NOT a paisley scarf. it was the pattern of the kaffiya, the kind Arafat used to wear, among many others of course.

    they overreacted, surely, but the association is undeniable.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 6:53pm

69. >>YOU FUCKING NITWIT<<

    Ah-nothing like the well thought out, well reasoned and eloquently illustrated thoughts of a Bush follower.

    Rush'd de proud...

    Posted by digit at 06/03/2008 @ 7:04pm

70. I've got him on ignore yet I can still see the spittle on the screen...and the lack of intelligence.

    Scotty, shields to full power!

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 7:25pm

71. Can we say reposting the same insipid drivel on 50 threads?

    Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 7:26pm

72. I'm not sure someone who confuses "your" and "you're" has any business calling anyone a nitwit.

    Posted by agentweez at 06/03/2008 @ 7:27pm

73. Libzuc has to be someone doing a vulgar, low rent Colbert. The "islamo-nazi" line convinced me that this guy cannot be serious. I have met some deranged rightists, but anyone that rabid would probably have a tough time accessing the internet from their padded cell. I would ignore him, but the posts are usually short, and just too goddamn funny.

    Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 7:30pm

74. Cahp'n, the shields canna hoold out mooch longerrr!

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 7:34pm

75. Balrog, have you tried diverting energy to the flux capacitor?

    Posted by agentweez at 06/03/2008 @ 7:40pm

76. CAN YOU IMAGINE A BLACK PRESIDENT AND A WOMEN VICE PRESIDENT? This the country I've always wanted to live in. Sorry about the caps, not really, I just got carried away like; Michelle, rev. Wright and father Pflagend. What a way to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world, "gotta love us", we always seem to do the right thing in the end.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/03/2008 @ 7:45pm

77. "Americans will always do the right thing...after they've exhausted all the alternatives"

    --Winston Churchill

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 7:52pm

78. Honestly, I'd rather have Vice President Tom Daschle.

    Posted by agentweez at 06/03/2008 @ 7:52pm

79. Posted by HAPPY3 at 06/3/2008

    Well, let's see. Does having Colin Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs mean that there isn't racism in the military? Continue that line of thought for the nominee for President and the United States and you'll see why racism isn't "neutered" - which, btw, is a rather strange turn of phrase in this context.

    As for having a nickname for a Presidential nominee, yeah, most instances will involve playing on some prejudice - particularly if it's one sided. Now, if you started calling McCain, "The Great White Hope" every time you mentioned him like you do with Obama and "Magic Negro" you'd at least be an even-handed bigot.

    Also, in order to make an equivalent for Hillary Clinton, you would have to cleverly use some kind of female cultural reference point (ideally negative), something like "Vaginal Monologuer" combined with some non-stop commentary about her biting aimed at conjuring up visions of vaginal dentata.

    Luckily for us, we'll never get to find out what Rush would have come up with now that she won't be the nominee.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/03/2008 @ 7:53pm

80. Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

    http://news.google.com/?ncl=1218915459&hl=en&topic=el

    You may want to read any number of articles on this page.

    Posted by agentweez at 06/03/2008 @ 8:02pm

81. MBB/Darin....

    your "objective observership" is totally UN-credible.

    You'd count ONE "Bush is an idiot" for every TEN Libzsuk "Bill Clinton is a raper" posts on any blog and call it "fair".

    And you've proven that time and time again, when you try to prove that the ONLY moral people in this country have a Republican Party affiliation.

    Like FRANK and his HRC cultism, your modus operandi was outed long ago!

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 8:08pm

82. srjenkins

    no L on vagina dentata

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 8:14pm

83. JOMAMMA

    right, the present occupant of the white house has been so sterling.

    28% approval. that's success for you isn't it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/3/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Never claimed Bush aspproval number were great...or a success...look at Congress...

    I am sauying Obie is unqualified at this time..which is different from me having policy issue differences with him...I also have policy issues with Bush..all of them.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/03/2008 @ 8:51pm

84. The fact that Obama is "unqualified" is exactly what makes him qualified. The status quo is what is wrong with our government. Our government needs to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck, given a good shaking, and then have the status quo kicked right f*ck out of it. Whether Obama can do that, I highly doubt, but I know that Hillary and McCain WON'T. They are the staus quo. Obama is not.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 9:01pm

85. Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/3/2008

    MAASCH....

    was CHENEY "qualified"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 9:09pm

86. Maasch, so Bush was more qualified then than Obama is now?

    I seriously doubt it.

    even if he were, it doesn't seem to be related to success or failure, as this has been the most unsuccessful president in the history of this country.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 9:30pm

87. since you are incapable of admitting an error, Maasch I wrote this for you:

    for over two years I have steadfastly insisted that Hillary would be the nominee of the democratic party. I could not have been more wrong. sincerely, John Maasch

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 9:33pm

88. Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/3/2008

    Feel free to outline how you define "qualified". Explain how McCain meets that criteria. Identify which other candidates were qualified, as you define it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/03/2008 @ 9:34pm

89. I thought a few years ago we were headed that way, that President Condoleeza Rice would be inaugurated in January of 2009. I think the reason that has not happened is that she has seen how her boss, President Bush, recieves daily and sometimes hourly crucification, and she decided that no job (even the highest office in the land) would be worth having to go through that.

    Posted by sjchermak

    yeah,

    that's why.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/03/2008 @ 9:44pm

90. Hillary speaking right now...harping on women voting, winning swing states, counting every vote. She's still campaigning.

    Says she wants to end the war in Iraq. pusing for health insurance...wants the people who voted for her to be heard. She's hit the "every voice heard" theme several times. She's still campaigning.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 9:46pm

91. This is incredible. Damn, it almost sounds like a victory speech. The woman is delusional.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 9:51pm

92. Well, KVH, you didn't get the speech you wanted. Not even close. Instead, you got a self-congratulating, disconnected-with-reality speech.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 9:53pm

93. Balrog

    yes, I could not bear it any longer.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 9:56pm

94. then they played something like a cher song.....

    yech...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/03/2008 @ 9:58pm

95. Best thread ever!!

    Two whiny lib coalitions fighting to determine who is the bigger victim, and BOTH sides making the accusation that the other is displaying either racist/sexist behavior that are only inherent in conservatives. LOL!

    I can't even make up my mind which is more entertaining....the hypocrisy of it all, or the extent of denial to keep ones self-image intact.

    I guess all that uber-sensitive PC bullshit eventually engulfs even it's most fervent promoters.

    Oh well....I can't stand Hillary, but I'm sad to see her go and end such an entertaining run. Although a bid on the Independent ticket could maintain a smile on the faces of those of us who are checking a box for the old guy.

    Yes....the time is right and there is plenty of compassion for either a woman or black POTUS....just not THESE 2 losers.

    Posted by Sliver at 06/03/2008 @ 9:58pm

96. In a survey of 22 countries, published on Tuesday, 80 per cent of people polled who said they were aware of the three main candidates - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain - said they were following the election "closely".

    Clinton, the former first lady and early favourite for the Democratic nomination who is under increasing pressure to concede defeat, emerged as the most recognisable candidate with 92 per cent of respondents indicating they were "aware" of her.

    But it was Obama who was the preferred of all three candidates, with more than half of those who said they were aware of the candidates saying they would most like to see him as the next president

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/03/2008 @ 9:58pm

97. Sliver***I can't stand Hillary, but I'm sad to see her go and end such an entertaining run.

    I'm so sure she's going.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 9:59pm

98. Sliver - I'm NOT so sure she's going.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2008 @ 10:00pm

99. oh, it was tina turner.

    <i>We don't need another hero

    We don't need to know the way home

    All we want is life beyond the thunderdome</i>

    Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:04:08 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/03/2008 @ 10:04pm

100. She's way past that minor item in Katrina's laundry list of "what the good little woman should be doing".

     Posted by tucanofulano at 06/03/2008 @ 10:17pm

101. And to perhaps confront the hate-mongering of the left wing.

     Posted by kevin99999 at 06/03/2008 @ 10:32pm

102. Sliver

     what's going to be really entertaining is when we make you eat these words.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 10:34pm

103. Neocons like Limbaugh and Happ and Sliv are forever claiming to be just besides themselves, so delighted, 'LOL', etc., so enamored with their own humor---all the while spewing super negative bs.

     It's bs in a bs wrapper. Everytime.

     Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2008 @ 12:57am

104. Dignity has always come hard for the Clintons, regardless of their talents. Disingenuousness has not. Tonight, alas, proved no exception.

     The limelight has shifted, but the Clintons remain stuck.

     Their loss, our gain.

     Felicitations to the winner, may he be allowed to fulfill his great promise.

     Posted by sloper at 06/04/2008 @ 01:13am

105. Sliver - I'm NOT so sure she's going

     Posted by Balrog at 06/3/2008

     This may require the use of a wooden stake.

     Posted by Benchrest at 06/04/2008 @ 01:29am

106. Very much in agreement with Wolfang's:

     "Katrina,

     Hillary Clinton is not the person to be delivering speeches about sexism after the way she ran her campaign. If she had run it with a little more class, then maybe she could deliver such a speech with a little integrity, but now, she's lost most of her credibility

     ...I voted for her and..."

     What put a distance between us (many male voters) and HRC was not sexism, but her conduct and arrogance. She played being strong (thinking absolute wrongly that most of us would perceive a woman as weak which is totally contrary to our political philosophy of human dignity and equality). Instead, when she played being sensitive to the needs of the people (which might be considered "weakness") she started to win....

     I don't condemn ever HRC, even when she committed errors that may still bury Obama with McCain. Don't talk about sexism, campaign for Obama and during his administration work to give a gift to the American people as for example, universal health care...Then everybody will remember that a woman did it when lots of men opposed it or did not believe in it.

     Posted by Frank42 at 06/04/2008 @ 02:21am

107. Obama shouldn't pick Hillary for VP. I mean she wants to be president so bad. She might have him Vince Fostered.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/04/2008 @ 07:57am

108. Bush never said that. People generally believe Karl Rove was responsible for the rumor, but Bush never said it. If he had, McCain could have made political hay out of the fact that Bush didn't know his daughter was adopted.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

     MBB, Karl Rove is a rethug. So, you are trying to say that the dems are the worst at throwing mud while you admit that Rove (Bush's PR guy) was behind a bullshit crappy move like that? That's a real class act. Everyone acts like Rove is some kind of genius, when in reality the guy is lying sack of shit who's claim to fame is basically committing slander.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2008 @ 08:20am

109. Way to KVH. A day late and a dollar short! Interesting you didn't publish this while the media, including THE NATION!, were beating Hillary bloody. HYPOCRITE!

     Posted by bleedingheart at 06/04/2008 @ 08:26am

110. Obama shouldn't pick Hillary for VP. I mean she wants to be president so bad. She might have him Vince Fostered.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/04/2008 @ 08:36am

111. Posted by bleedingheart at 06/4/2008

     Feel free to point out how "the media" treated Clinton worse than Obama. I know this idea is repeated over and over again by Clinton supporters - but I don't think she got much different treatment. Particularly, try to take a moment to remember the many months before Iowa - a mere five months ago in a campaign that has been going at least a year - where HRC was the front-runner.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2008 @ 08:40am

112. HRC is like a speaker talking as the lights have come up, the chairs are being folded, and the audience is walking towards the exits, looking back over their shoulders in confusion as the wman on the stage continues to blather on and on and on...

     She had a chance to actually unify the party, but instead continued to campaign even though Obama has the delegates.

     Cna you even imagine if the roles were reversed? The outcry over Obama campaigning when obviously out of it would have come months ago, and if he had the "audacity" to campaign on the night of Clinton's going over the top in delegates, he probably would have been cut off at the knees. It's time for everybody to come to the realization that Obama is the nominee, and unless you are one of the 27% who think the country is better off because of Bush, to get behind Obama. To vote for McCain out spite (which is what people like Frank are doing their denials to the contrary) is to vote for more war, more tax cuts for the rich, more corporate welfare, more extreme conservatives on the Supreme Court, more unfunded mandates like NCLB, and more attempts to consoldiate national power in the executive office. Remember, that's what you're voting for when you pull the lever for McBush in November - and if Hilary gave a rat's ass about the country, she'd give up her Quixotic campaign and put her money where her mouth is when she makes sounds about unifying the party.

     Posted by Turk33 at 06/04/2008 @ 09:08am

113. I admitted nothing. I made a statement of fact: "People generally believe..." This estiblished the point I was trying to make: Bush did not claim McCain fathered an illegitamate black child.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     True enough. But the dispute was that you said dems were worse at slinging the proverbial mud than republicans.

     The false illigitemate black child leak was produced during the republican primary between Bush and McCain in the Sate of South Carolina where innuedos of such are taken rather seriously. In short, a republican hatched this crap to win a primary, not a dem. So your statement that dems are worse at slinging the mud doesn't hold much water. The comment about McCain's adopted daughter wasn't true, it was a blatant, calculated lie.

     Saying Bush used cocaine is not a lie. Challenging Bush's collegiate performance is not a lie. Challenging Bush's failed business credentials is not a lie.

     So, how do you compare stating facts against Bush by the dems to lie's Bush's campaign did to McCain?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2008 @ 09:11am

114. HRC is like a speaker talking as the lights have come up, the chairs are being folded, and the audience is walking towards the exits, looking back over their shoulders in confusion as the wman on the stage continues to blather on and on and on...

     She had a chance to actually unify the party, but instead continued to campaign even though Obama has the delegates.

     Cna you even imagine if the roles were reversed? The outcry over Obama campaigning when obviously out of it would have come months ago, and if he had the "audacity" to campaign on the night of Clinton's going over the top in delegates, he probably would have been cut off at the knees. It's time for everybody to come to the realization that Obama is the nominee, and unless you are one of the 27% who think the country is better off because of Bush, to get behind Obama. To vote for McCain out spite (which is what people like Frank are doing their denials to the contrary) is to vote for more war, more tax cuts for the rich, more corporate welfare, more extreme conservatives on the Supreme Court, more unfunded mandates like NCLB, and more attempts to consoldiate national power in the executive office. Remember, that's what you're voting for when you pull the lever for McBush in November - and if Hilary gave a rat's ass about the country, she'd give up her Quixotic campaign and put her money where her mouth is when she makes sounds about unifying the party.

     Posted by Turk33 at 06/04/2008 @ 09:13am

115. Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     Again, more MBB/Darin duplicity....

     Evidence that BUSH (Rove is no puppet, he's an employee) engaged in sleazy mud-slinging...and Darin gets all dodgy and starts to do "Well, it's not TECHNICALLY true that..."

     all the while his ORIGINAL "point" that "Dems are worse mud-slingers than Repubs could EVER be" collapses.

     We see it time and time and time again. Darin comes out with some idiocy LIKE...

     "I believe more Democrats than Republicans abuse their spouses...can't prove it, just believe it's true"....

     then evidence to the contrary...

     then "Well, how do you define 'abuse' and I said spouses, you're only counting wives...could be a lot of Dem women are abusing their husbands!"...

     then "Well, okay, BOTH sides do it" (after being shown some study showing it's mostly Republicans)...

     then "You guys are putting words in my mouth....I never said it was a fact, just that I believed it was true. I'm such a victim of people twisting my words and making me SEEM unreasonable!!!!"

     and then it starts all over again the next day!

     Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 09:13am

116. Posted by Mask at 06/4/2008

     What do you expect? The Republican party obviously represents the ideas and methodology of its members well. How else can you explain people 5 years into a "war" still claiming that things are getting better (again) and we're turning a corner (again) and the Iraqis are showing signe of being able to take care of themselves (again)? How else can you explain Bushco blaming the incredible ineptitude of FEMA under Brown on the corrupt Democrats Louisiana? What, were the Dems-on-the-take blockading the roads to prevent FEMA from helping out? How else can you explain "You're with us or against us!" as a consistent statement from a man who was going to be a "uniter, not a divider?" The party of Lincoln has become the party of spin and rationalization and heads-in-the-sand reality.

     The past 8 years have been a cluster f*%#, and yet 28% of the population still thinks things are just great. And when some conservative comes back with "but Conress has an even lower approval ratings," which is true, they always neglect to admit that the reason it's so low is because Americans expected the Dem's to actually stand up to the commando-in-chief and his minions, pursue subpoenas against CIA agent-outers and intelligence benders/hiders, and in general at least make an honest attempt to contain the damages caused by this administration until they can gain the White House and a working majority in both houses in November.

     Posted by Turk33 at 06/04/2008 @ 09:30am

117. Darin! Quick, call up Johnnie Cochran. Via John Edward?

     Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2008 @ 09:33am

118. See what ya get for being nice? It doesn't change squat because Hillary in her delusional narcississm believes that she is entitled regardless of how others try to soften the blow. She believes that others should be rolling out the carpet and treating her like a queen and if they don't it is because they are sexist and picking on her. Queen of white trash. Time for a wooden stake. As a woman, I'd rather a good, decent, caring and compassionate man than a woman modeling herself on the very worst traits of maschismo, corrupt, lying bluster as any kind of role model for women.

     At least African Americans have a candidate they can be proud of. Clinton is a humiliation to women.

     Posted by Lil at 06/04/2008 @ 09:54am

119. She can't fight sexism when she uses it as a political game, accusing the non-sexist of being sexist, and ignoring real sexism where it exists. She has no interest in sexism or women's issues, neither do her hardcore supporters who vow to fight Obama all the way to November. It isn't about sexism or gender or reproductive rights or any of that to them, it is about Hillary Clinton and her political ambition. Period.

     Posted by bridoc at 06/04/2008 @ 10:50am

120. Dick Morris -- TheHill.com -- 8 May, 2008

     'If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. ... Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can't stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama's ability to get elected....'

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/04/2008 @ 10:53am

121. How else can you explain Bushco blaming the incredible ineptitude of FEMA under Brown on the corrupt Democrats Louisiana?

     Posted by Turk33

     Well that is easy to explain. FEMA was inept but the first responders are local. The mayor was inept as was the governor of Louisiana. Something about not evacuating with available buses comes to mind. If Bush went in there with the Army, you would be screaming about violating the state's sovereignty. New Orleans was not prepared. I have been there often. Taken tours of the city where the tour guide tells about how the city is below sea level and how the city would be washed away in a major hurricane. The voters of New Orleans even voted down proposals to rebuild the levees.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/04/2008 @ 11:12am

122. ...because I was pissed that you were twisting my words.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     See there is your problem. You can't get mad because then you say some off the handle things that get taken as your thought process and then it turns into a battle. However because you only said it because you were mad and don't actually believe it then when you try to take it back because you legitimately didn't mean it it appears as if you are backpedaling.

     I see where the misunderstanding occurred and I only served to perpetuate it, so I apologize.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:23am

123. Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/4/2008

     "C'mon lil fella, c'mon." Dorie, 'Finding Nemo'

     Posted by Benchrest at 06/04/2008 @ 11:28am

124. Bush was a C student at Yale. Calling him an "idiot" is not true. Some of his Businesses failed. That doesn't prove he is stupid.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     Getting C's at Yale certainly doens't prove he's smart enough to be the president of the United States and running failed businesses doesn't qualify him to president of the United States or even to be the gov. or Texas.

     The guy made a mockery of his office. Bill Clinton may have lied about his activities with interns and such, but you would be hard pressed saying Bill Clinton isn't smart. I'll bet you Bill Clinton wasn't a C student and I'd wager that Hillary and Obama weren't either.

     The fact that Bush ran on this holier than thou crap and partied like a rock star when he was younger shows just how hypocritical he is. They damn well should have shown a spot light on that as well as his DUI, and coke use.

     As I've pointed out before, most people with the crime records like W's and Cheney's couldn't even get a secret clearance in the military let alone a top secret clearance. And you rethugs act like W and Cheney are these pure angels handed down to us from God to tell us how to live a wholesome, righteous, moralistic life while they themselves are anything but wholesoome, righteous or moralistic.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:41am

125. Well that is easy to explain. FEMA was inept but the first responders are local. The mayor was inept as was the governor of Louisiana. Something about not evacuating with available buses comes to mind. If Bush went in there with the Army, you would be screaming about violating the state's sovereignty. New Orleans was not prepared. I have been there often. Taken tours of the city where the tour guide tells about how the city is below sea level and how the city would be washed away in a major hurricane. The voters of New Orleans even voted down proposals to rebuild the levees.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/4/2008

     So you're saying that because the locals were unable or unwilling to respond to a disaster of epic proportions, the federal agency that's sole purpose is to respond to disasters of epic proportions gets a pass? That it's the lack of a local response that forgives the DAYS it took for federal emergency relief to get there?

     I'm not saying that the locals don't have a portion of the blame, but FEMA has the lion's share. To deny that is to ludicrous and partisan.

     Posted by Turk33 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:52am

126. Well that is easy to explain. FEMA was inept but the first responders are local. The mayor was inept as was the governor of Louisiana. Something about not evacuating with available buses comes to mind. If Bush went in there with the Army, you would be screaming about violating the state's sovereignty. New Orleans was not prepared. I have been there often. Taken tours of the city where the tour guide tells about how the city is below sea level and how the city would be washed away in a major hurricane. The voters of New Orleans even voted down proposals to rebuild the levees.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/4/2008

     So you're saying that because the locals were unable or unwilling to respond to a disaster of epic proportions, the federal agency that's sole purpose is to respond to disasters of epic proportions gets a pass? That it's the lack of a local response that forgives the DAYS it took for federal emergency relief to get there?

     I'm not saying that the locals don't have a portion of the blame, but FEMA has the lion's share. To deny that is to ludicrous and partisan.

     Posted by Turk33 at 06/4/2008

     Yeah I am going to have to agree with most of it. I think they both get equal blame but what the hell is the point of FEMA if it is not going to respond to a disaster like that. It's like saying firefighters who show up 40 minutes after the house has started burning because the people who live there should have held it back with their water hoses.

     The problem with giving all the blame to the locals is that, it's easier for the government to mount a response that isn't not already stationed in New Orleans or the surrounding area. The people who were actually IN New Orleans already had their equipment drowned when it flooded so it's a little bit difficult to do a rescue when you helicopter is underwater, unless it is a boat too. Where as when the federal government mounts a response it can do it from anywhere in the Nation and bring in as many people as it needs to insure that things are handled properly.

     I bring up the issue of the California wildfires that happened like 3 years ago I think now. California firefighters battled the wildfires for a long time trying their hardest to hold it back to the point that I think a few firefighters died but the scale of the fires and the amount of them were just too big and too many. We had to call in 10,000 more out of state firefighters in order to battle them and it still took days to put them out. Now are you going to say it's all California's fault? I don't think so personally because I think sometimes a disaster is just too big for the local government with it's limited resources to deal with whereas the Federal government can come in, in all its epicosity (not my word but I had to use it), and draw in many many more resources such as 10,000 firefighters the California did not have.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 12:12pm

127. I'm not saying that the locals don't have a portion of the blame, but FEMA has the lion's share. To deny that is to ludicrous and partisan.

     Posted by Turk33 Please reread my post. It starts of with "Fema was inept"

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/04/2008 @ 12:12pm

128. The only qualifications you need to be President are to 35 years old and a natural born citizen.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/04/2008 @ 12:14pm

129. Yes, I ill advisedly said that out of anger and regret it. Since there is no objective measure of mudslinging Republicans will judge the Dems as worse and the Dems will judge the Reps as worse.----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     "So I (ill advisedly) took the bait and said, "No back pedaling, dems are worse than Repubs" even though I never said that in the first place and only said it because I was pissed that you were twisting my words."----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     Right on time.......

     "then "Well, okay, BOTH sides do it" (after being shown some study showing it's mostly Republicans)...

     then "You guys are putting words in my mouth....I never said it was a fact, just that I believed it was true. I'm such a victim of people twisting my words and making me SEEM unreasonable!!!!"

     and then it starts all over again the next day!"----Posted by Mask at 06/4/2008

     Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 12:15pm

130. The only qualifications you need to be President are to 35 years old and a natural born citizen.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/4/2008

     I thought it was 45 for president 35 for Senator.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 12:27pm

131. Posted by Turk33 at 06/4/2008

     Actually, Turk33, the local and state government gets most of the blame. They were in charge and handled things poorly.

     Posted by ACook at 06/04/2008 @ 12:29pm

132. KVH.....are you serious?

     Ya think this nasty piece of work is entitled to carry the torch for women's issues? Better think again.

     Splendid example of how she stands for women was her early position on merit pay for excellent teachers. She was against it based on excellence alone. Lots of women teachers and educators on the public payroll.

     Clinton exemplies traits and a persona that alot of women find repulsive. Get a clue and stop trying to find a place for the wicked witch to retire to. Her speech last night was another reminder of her selfish self aggrandizing agenda that has crossed the lines of absurd a long ago.

     Posted by OneVote at 06/04/2008 @ 12:30pm

133. Unless this is your first election, you must mean that you've never heard a DEMOCRAT candidate called names, belittled or insulted so personally.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     I would stop this argument mary. Now that I reread this statement his point IS valid. Here you basically said that a Democrat has never been insulted that it only happens to Republicans like Dubya. That was not your original intent but that's how it reads.

     "you've never heard a DEMOCRAT"

     See when you isolate that part you are saying it never happens to Demo's only Republicans. Which implies that only Demo's insult. Again I know this was not your point but I would back down from this one with a simple I misstated my point.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 12:30pm

134. The only qualifications you need to be President are to 35 years old and a natural born citizen.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/4/2008

     You are right, but you missed the biggest qualification. That qualification would be that you will sell yourself to the highest campaign bidders to do their bidding once in office. Sure, you might get a pet project here and there pushed through that you may personally want, but by and large, you are bought for, and out righ