But I must admit, I really, really really dislike Harriet Christian. She struck me as an offensive person. Her words were disgraceful.

But I'm very glad you've denounced His44. If they're working against Obama, then they're working against Hillary, and that's not cool at all.

You're always allowed to speak your mind.

The thing is, so is everyone else.

And they're allowed to tell you that you're wrong about some things.

...and exclamation marks. They make stuff hard to read.

Glad you're away from the H44 abyss.

however, so is my grandma...and while I disagree with her viewpoints, I still love her.

Still, those comments cannot and should not be condoned by anyone, and supporting them does not reflect well at all on the NoQuarter, Hils44, Puma posters.  It makes them look nuts!

I wanna give you props though Sandy.  You apparently aren't offended by Harriet Christien, but DESPITE that have come to support Obama.

Ive been living in rural Japan for the last 3 years and there isn't a white male, other than myself, for miles around.  So I've learned quite a lot first hand about racism and its many different flavors.  

Ive learned this:
We can't pretend that race and racism do not exist.  Everyone sees race and everyone is racist to a certain extent (even the most saintly among us), but I give you credit for being able to get past that and support Obama.  

We're gonna need the support of the unintentional, mild (read: not malicious) racist Sandys of the world, too, if we want to put an end to this 8 years-too-long nightmare...  

18 million Democrats voted for Hillary, and 80 to 90 percent of them will vote for Obama, because they are Democrats and want to see a progressive voice in the White House.

Dozens - maybe even hundreds - are so angry and bitter they would cut off their nose to spite their face, and will vote for a misogynist prick who wants to take away a woman's right to control her own body.

Just keep that in perspective - the Internet magnifies small but vocal and angry groups. But when the votes are counted, it's the 18 million we'll be hearing from, not the 1800 or 18,000.

You're free to speak your mind, but somewhere down the line this went down a deep, dark path.

What's curious is that it's unveiled something that I always knew remained within the Democratic Party - that covert racism that managed to rear its ugly head.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry about it.  Finally, I just said "to hell with it."

Harriet Christian? Support her all you want.  She revealed her true stripes. I don't have to.

As for Hillaryis44 being a movement.  No, not Hillaryis44, but I would grant that the last several months of the campaign, Hillary's campaign turned into a movement.  It was just overshadowed by a larger one.

I suspect much of Hillary's problem was that she listened to the wrong people (Mark Penn) within her campaign.  Had she just been Hillary, the outcome would have come out differently.

is a FARKer based on what I've seen at Hillaryis44.

I appauld you, but as a black male that site totally offends me and its just sad.

I have absolutely no respect for Hillis44/NoQuarter posters and i am very VERY glad they are leaving the Democratic party.

and I will remember those posters names, when Obama wins, they better STAY republicans and not try to come back to the democratic party later.
they are a complete embarrassment and its posters like that that really really reflected badly on Hillary.

they want to complain about "obamabots" and how it was his supporters that made them not vote for Obama, well they need to take a step back and look at themselves, if we could send that site to ALL women who still want Hillary I am pretty sure just the thought of being associated with those women would move them to Obama even faster.

just horrible embarrassing people.

Hillary is 44 is NOT a Democratic site?

It is filled with trolls, haters and Republican operatives who take great joy in creating division within the Democratic party.

While there are some die hard Hillary loyalists, I think most of the folks are posers.

They don't base their votes on racism or sexism. They base it on the merits.

Sorry, but you have been had.

The ugly truth is "The Attack Timeline" was specifically to give credence to the notion of Hillary as Victim. T

he success of taking every perceived slight (ie:Barack is tall and looks down on Hillary, therefore Obama is a sexist) and blowing it up as a "pile on" or a sexist attack was intentional.

The goal was to rile up women to turn out the vote.

 Now the problem is undoing the damage done.

It is no secret that Republican operatives played on this narrative for pure political gain, to divide democrats.

You know what? I never went to that site nor posted there but it's apparently how some people feel.

Of course, Obama supporters aren't really helping much on this account either. They're continually shouting people down and calling anyone who questions Obama's stances or points out his weaknesses.

Feh, this election is pretty much shot. 6 months ago I would have said no Dem could lose but right now it's certainly not looking that way.

There is a good diary on DKOS from someone who identifies very strongly with Harriert - I was the "crazy screaming woman".  I think there is fair commentary to be had on either side of this.

On the one hand, I and many others saw that and understandably thought, "Wow!  Someone needs a nap!" or phrases more or less kind than that.  The picture of someone quite clearly not using calm logic (on the more kind end) or perhaps simply foaming-at-the-mouth bat-crazy (on the less kind end) is never something that the unsuspecting observer will note with a more neutral view.

On the other, as you and LauraD say, if you identify with Harriets emotions it is easy to thing, "Yep!  Wish I had a camera to scream at right about now!"

Neither view is wrong.

LauraD made Harriet a little more understandable to me.  She is freaked out.  Maybe given some time to decompress, take a long walk, sleep late for a few days - her view of the world would be different.  We all lose it, sometimes.

Again, on the other hand, maybe not. Given that this is the only view we have of this individual, it is also possible that Harriet will not sound any different today - or next year.  Maybe she was just upset then, maybe she is barking mad and irrational.

Certainly she did not do anything to disabuse the notions of those who think women cannot handle pressure.  

Neither, in my opinion, did Sen. Clinton by requiring four days to "come to terms" with the end of the primaries. I would be disengenuous not to put that out there - many have already.

Jimmy Carter is said to have been emotionally devestated by his loss in his second term.  Who would not be?  I am sure that this is true for every person who has run and lost.

The narrative that goes along with "She needs time" is bound to raise those related debates about gender differences.  Harriet raises those issues.

In my house I (Chris as in Christopher) am more often the emotional wreck - at least over small things (I cry early and often).  However under enormous stress I am the one more likely to be incapable of showing emotion and plodding forward into the flames in the stereotypically male goal-oriented problem solver way.  How much and which parts of that are nature, how much nurture?  I dunno.  But Harriet's reaction and Sen. Clinton's need for emotional concessions did not precisely advance the topic in a positive direction.

Except perhaps to open this uncomfortable conversation...

-best

-chris

don't deserve a second of my time.

As someone invovled in gay rights, I see a group of assholes saying they'll vote for McCain and all Republicans because Obama is a gay-basher and a woman-hater.

So they fix it by voting for gay-bashers and women-haters?

The rights of gays and women don't matter to those people.

They can drop dead for all I care.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 308/A_campaign_mystery_solved_HillaryIs4 4.html

We learned awhile ago that the site was set up by freelance political spinner Alex Rodriguez. He was a mercinary orginizer of Perot supporters, unaffiliated with Perot himself, in the early '90s.

One has to wonder whether or not he hasn't been a stealth Clinton operative all along.  There's no question that Perot's candidacy was a huge figure in getting Bill Clinton elected by siphoning off conservative votes from George H.W. Bush.  

So yes, HillaryIs44 is a two-way mirror.  Die-hard Clinton supporters see themselves while the people behind it see rubes.

Oh no, the grammar disaster that is Hillaryis44 is now coming to MyDD?

Policy's as a plural?  Yikes

As for Harriet, I know her type, and she's a racist relic

Those folks are pathetic.  After Hillary's endorsement this weekend, they speak for themselves, not for her.

Perhaps you want Obama to hire Harriet Christian into his cabinet... Or else you're voting for McCain! Any other demands you'd like me to pass along?