This site is about electing all democrats if you don't want to elect a dem in the white house it is time for you to leave this site.

Isn't the same as someone questioning your right to vote.  That's a bullshit stawman.  Can you show that you're not wrong?  Because you can't you pretend this person is questioning your rights.  You have a right to think John McCain is an acceptable option.  Democrats have a right to tell you you're dead wrong.  

We abandoned our commitment to segregation in the '60s.

It was a hundred years too late.

I never thought that running sane, effective, predictable, reproducible, and fair primaries was a Democratic cause.  Frankly, I can think of way, way, way too many examples of the opposite.

I understand that you're unhappy with the situation.  I am emphatically not attacking you for that.  I just don't see the world as you do right now.  I am not opposed to learning, obviously, but I think we have all been poorly served by our respective tribalism.

But your problem is with the Democratic Party as it was before Barack Obama was nominated; the process you criticize was concieved and maintained by a party leadership where the Clintons carried much weight.

Why do you put the blame on Obama for this? He did not define the rules of the game. He played the rules, he outplayed Clinton. Had the rules been different, no doubt he and she would have played differently, and nobody knows who would have won.

I agree that the party made a huge mistake by applying the maximal penalty to MI and FL, instead of the minimal penalty. But there again, how can you concievably consider that Obama is responsible in any way for that?  

And I think you're making a similar mistake.

"My candidate lost therefore her loss was caused by systemic flaws in the primary/caucus system and sexism by the media and the male portions of the party."

I also suggest you read the comments by diarists, such as myself (and I was far from alone) who have been saying for months that we need to fix this system before 2012.

Our gripe has been, this whole time, that you cannot fairly change the system in the middle of a nomination process.  It simply will not work.

And before you reply that this system cost Senator Clinton the nomination (which is academic.  She might have won or lost under other systems, we cannot know that), please remember that given the incredible planning of the Obama campaign strongly suggests that they would have planned appropriately for any other system we might have used.

Obama hired some very smart, capable, and remarkably quiet people to do this.  They probably would have done very well under any other sane system.

Senator Clinton fought very, very hard.  However, up until a few months ago, her campaign didn't fight very smart.  That cost her.

last summer complaining about it?

You don't get to protest AFTER the fact. Change it for next time. You don't get to bitch about the rules of the game after it's played, sorry.

It's not about past work, it's about future work.  Hillary Clinton is a powerful Senator.  Her future work is contingent upon having a Democrat to sign her bills into law.

If you voted for Hillary because you agreed with her goals and objectives for this country, why would you ever try to impede that work by supporting someone who will veto her legislation?

Vote for Obama because he'll make possible everything Hillary Clinton is trying to do in the senate.

But you seem to disagree with one politician 100%...

Do you vote for policies or personalities?

Then why would you ever vote for the man who would veto that work?

If you really supported what she's doing in the Senate, then you'd vote for the person who will sign her bills into law.  Only Barack Obama will do that.

the Supreme Court, the lives of thousands more young Americans and countless Iraqis, B.S. indeed my friend.   That is quite a powerful comeback you have there.  

I never said that, Obama never said that, all the Obama supporters I know never said that.

Which is why the issue died after about a day.

saying that a black man is "articulate" IS insulting to African Americans. And to whites like me who are offended by racist comments.

Don't you get it????

When you praise one black guy for being "articulate" it implies or suggests that most are not, and that one should be surprised at seeing a black man who can speak well.

Think of all of the stereotypes against blacks in this country. What is the biggest lie? It is the "blacks are stupid and uneducated" lie. The "articulate" comment only feeds that ugly stereotype and lie. It isn't acceptable.

Biden isn't a racist I am sure but he fed into the mindset that shows surprise at a black who sounds educated. And a politician like Biden SHOULD be smart enough to know that the "articulate" backhanded "complement" is pretty famous as a way to insult an African American. A smart politician knows not to say it.

Don't we have a goal to root out racism against blacks in this country??? Isn't that a major goal of this Democratic party? Then lets get to it.

I am a white male and I for one am waiting to hear all of these so called progressive bloggers really address the problem of anti-black racism in this country, in our party and even on these blogs.

lie

No it proves that the dismissal of concerns of democratic women by the DNC will lead to some not supporting the Democratic party in November.

That's all.