UPDATED - Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Update [2008-6-9 21:13:5 by Falsehood]: Many of the comments on this diary say that we shouldn't worry about this, because the idea that Obama exploited sex isn't true. While I agree with these people in that I don't see Obama to be at fault, that doesn't mean that others will automatically share my opinion. I hope we can find a way to reach out to those who feel Obama exploited/attacked her sex, because everyone we can reach is another supporter for the General Election. This isn't about who is right - it's about giving Obama the best support we can.

Alegre posted a diary entitled "Sorry Gang - I'm Just Not There Yet," at the "Hillary's Bloggers" site near midnight on Saturday.

She said, in part:

I just can't do it - not yet. I respect Hillary more than words can say and I know she did what she had to do today. I was there to hear her speak and found myself cheering wildly every time she paused to catch her breath, until she got to the part where she asked us to join her in her fight to help elect Obama as our next president.

Then I stood there silent, with my hands folded politely in front of me.

I'm not saying I won't ever get there as far as voting for the guy goes. At this point BO might (might) get my vote in November if he ends up being our nominee. But he's going to have to work damn hard to win my vote after the way he lied about Hillary, and remained silent as the media and even his own supporters and staff attacked her with some of the most bizarre and misogynistic load of garbage I've ever heard.

Embedded in the post was this video that I couldn't even finish the first time through:

I didn't think I really got it until today.

Until today, I thought Clinton supporters were overreacting to fair attacks and criticisms. Instead, they were under-reacting to the unfair, horrible attacks.

This video is horrible.

For Clinton supporters, her defeat means their victory. The man who shouted "Iron my Shirt," the creator of the Hillary nutcracker, and all of the other haters triumphed. Yet more importantly to me, the problem is that these people feel Barack Obama stepped back and let it happen.

They think he stepped back, and let them call Bill Clinton a racist. They think he stepped back, and let them call her a b** and c***. When they see the overwhelming celebration over the first black nominee and his historic rise, they see a spotlight that was stolen from a woman who worked twice as hard.

And they are angry.

I didn't truly understand that until this hour, and I am deeply, deeply, sorry. Please know that my support for is unchanged; even as I learn about why some despise him, I think he acted appropriately (with the few inevitable slip-ups - you're "likable enough.")

I don't know if I or we can fix this, but we can certainly keep it from getting worse. Alegre isn't the same as the folks over at Hillaryis44, and we should never accuse her or others like her of being so. Please don't exacerbate this polarization.

I don't think the sexists won here, though. This was the Democratic primary - of the party of Clinton in the 90s, and while I think the party did move away from her, as seen in the election of Dean to Chair, I don't think it was because of the sexists or hatred.

I really, honestly, truly, don't.

Because for me, Clinton's candidacy was tarnished not by who she was, but the things I saw her do, just as Obama's candidacy was tarnished for some because of what he DID NOT do. I don't know if he could have done better.

If he had reached out and defended her, would he have been attacked for not letting her stand up for herself, and for "protecting" her? Did she stand up against the Muslim rumors in the same way?

These are the reasons why I don't agree with Alegre, though I do not intend to attack her or call her out in any way with this diary. Yet I feel I understand where she is coming from much better than I did yesterday.

That's doesn't mean I know how to fix it. If you have ideas, I'd love to hear them.

Update [2008-6-9 14:34:9 by Falsehood]: Though I'm enjoying the robust discussion of which side was at fault of what, I'd really like to hear some ideas on how Obama and his supporters (myself included) can show that this sexism was reprehensible. To be clear - no sides' hands are clean, and debating who was deeper in the mud won't help us get up out of it.

Tags: Alegre, clinton, obama, unity (all tags)

Comments

403 Comments

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Well you could start by stop the lie about "Did she stand up against the Muslim rumors in the same way?".  In fact she did defend him against the muslin rumors and then she got smeared when her words were twisted.  Look at the whole quote some time.

david

by giusd 2008-06-09 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

"As far as I know" -- Clinton.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:18AM | 0 recs
Less than one second.

Media Matters:

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

Lots of eager, tsk-tsking pundits and reporters agreed. They said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying. Even more peculiar was Kroft's obsession with the Muslim question amid a 60 Minutes report that was about Ohio's shrinking working class and what Clinton and Obama were going to do to try stop of the overseas flow of U.S. manufacturing jobs. (Note to Kroft and the rest of the media: Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton knows Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton does not believe Obama is a Muslim. Clinton made this very clear.)

by catfish2 2008-06-09 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

I think their interpretation is off. Sure, she denied it. But she also said "so far as I know" which left the door open to people thinking that she wasn't sure if it was absolutely clear if Obama is a Muslim.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:44AM | 0 recs
Spoken like a true political hack!!

by SevenStrings 2008-06-09 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

It's clowns like you who want to perpetuate this bs about Clinton that's the product of people like Matthews who make me start thinking about whether I want to support someone who is supported by such jerks. Why don't you just shut up and it will be much better for your guy.    

by ottovbvs 2008-06-09 09:51AM | 0 recs
Correction

"Why don't you just shut up and it will be much better for your guy."

FYI if you are a democrat he is YOUR guy now too..... like it or not. now you can grow up and face the facts because tantrums don't work for children and it won't work for you    

by wellinformed 2008-06-09 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

Then vote for someone else.  Or don't vote.  But stop this bullshit blackmail of "You guys better be nice or I won't vote for Obama."  Then don't.  I call your bluff.  If you are a real Democrat, you'll choose Obama over McCain.  If you aren't a real Democrat, you aren't going to vote for Obama anyway.  Your choice.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

I think playing the victim now is a set back for women.  

by ImpeachBushCheney 2008-06-09 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

Real Democrats not only vote for the democratic nominee, they also show respect to  people that are hurting because they just lost something very valuable to them.

by Ernst 2008-06-09 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

good point, politicsmatters has always done that and has always been a troll

by zerosumgame 2008-06-09 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

The video is certainly powerful. It brilliantly illustrates the disgusting sexism that exists in our society and how it manifests itself openly more often than we all may realize. Racism is overt is some places, but largely has become an underground, highly encoded endeavor that manifests in the cracks of society. Both are alive and well. Both must be fought with equal vigor and seriousness.

In my opinion, one is inseparable from the other. The sexism or racism that came out from either of these campaigns against one another was unfortunate, but I don't believe that either individual or the efforts of their campaign staffs were in any way institutionally racist or sexist. Both camps could have handled things better, and it shows that we are all, not matter how open-minded and progressive, capable of crossing the line.

What makes no sense to me, whatsoever, is blaming Obama for the shit you saw in that video. In fact, the most overt example of support for sexism was when McCain agreed with the person at his town hall who asked how we are going to beat the b*tch. Facing reality and digging into the real, honest to goodness substance of this election the choice is clear. Voting Democrat will crack the door wide open for a progressive agenda that will help women, African-Americans, Native Americans, Americans of all stripes, and hopefully create a fairer society.

Obama isn't a sexist anymore than your fathers, brothers, or husbands. He probably misses some of the important things that women feel because he's a man. His intentions are in the right place. His policies are in the right place. His actions are in the right place. His words probably need education from time to time. The same goes for the race issue when it comes to Clinton people, and frankly from people in his own campaign. ALL of us need to make personal progress.

Sitting out this election, or voting McCain just isn't smart. In fact, it's stupid. Alegre may or may not be a smart, well-intentioned person. I don't know her. I know her diaries. She lost sight of the big picture in her support of Hillary Clinton.

Most of the people who supported Obama, chose to do so because they either want change and a break from the Clinton leadership that the party has seen for a generation. Or, they opposed Hillary over substance. Policy. Associations. "Crashing the Gates" was written by Kos and Jerome and spelled out the NetRoots commitment to a particular strategy. Clinton is one of the people holding on to the old, failed way of running the party. She's a tremendous individual and a visionary about a lot of things. Her ties to the failed party structure are one of the main reasons why I didn't support her.

I think you'll find that 99% of Obama supporters feel the same as I do. I would have worked to the death to elect her if she won the nomination via the rules. The pledged delegates majority, plus supers as the case turned out. Her devotion to people like Mark Penn, who didn't even know that California wasn't winner take all doomed her, and allowed Obama to show another approach to campaigning and leadership that turned on a lot of people. That's a great outcome. Hillary lost, but the Democrats won. The personal outcome for a lot of people didn't end up the way they would have liked, but I think there's an opportunity to craft our party the way we want it, including the women's agenda. Clinton will still play a major role in that progressive vision.

I understand that YouTube clip and it hurts me as well. Cutting off our nose to spite our face solves nothing and I don't quite understand people who would do it.

by mikeplugh 2008-06-09 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

read my post lower down where the full bit of that interview is posted.

it isn't a "sure, she denied it".  She denied it 8 times before giving the WTF else do YOU want me to say moment.

You are just spreading the BS that was seeded from this one soundbite, instead of watching it fully.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-09 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

And you have never said HRC is a liar.  Whatever.

david

by giusd 2008-06-09 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

jeez, that was the frikking point of asking her time and time again!

They deliberately kept asking her again and again to make her say anything that would add a qualifier, so that they then could claim their gotcha.

If you have to leave out dozens of clear statements contradictory in the same quote to get that gotcha something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Within the context is abundantly that she doesn't think that. The gotcha only works when used as a single line. But that's intellectually dishonest.

The news deliberately went with that because it would push ratings. And then people can say things like "sure she denied it, but" But what? but when pushed several times she said a single qualifier that only gains it meaning through constant contextless repetition and spurious editing?

It was a manufactured controversy. It's what the media does, and what we as the blogs should be fighting against, or at least not buy into it just because it would make such a fine attack that it would be a waste to not to belief it.

by Ernst 2008-06-09 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

She said "No, no" in response to the first question.

After he asked again, she said "There's nothing to base that on.. as far as I know."

So the "as far as I know" was NOT in relation to Obama being a Muslim.  It was in relation to there being nothing to base that on.

This is silly.  

by leisure 2008-06-09 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

Why would you say "so far as I know" in relation to whether there's anything to base it on?

And, frankly, I don't think this is a big deal. If Clinton would have won the nomination, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

If you don't think it's a big deal, then why do you insist on perpetuating a clearly dishonest meme?  It is as plain as the nose on your face that she denied that he was a Muslim multiple times before finally saying 'as far as I know,' and yet that's the ONLY part you choose to repeat.

by slynch 2008-06-09 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

Some of us Obama supporters are a bit defensive after all the harping on the "likable enough" comment (which was a slip up that was, at worst, on the same level as her "as far as I know) and the ridiculous finger-gate bullshit.  Sorry that we are a bit angry also.  Hillary supporters don't have the market cornered on anger.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

Reality check. Our guy won, their gal lost.

The only thing worse then a sore loser is a sore winner. If you are still angry now that you won, you are in dire need of some perspective.

by Ernst 2008-06-09 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

No, I am angry that Hillary supporters pretend like Obama is the only one with dirty hands after this primary.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Less than one second.

I think she was surprised that he asked twice... and started questioning in her own mind whether there was some piece of "evidence" that he knew about which she didn't.

And so she said, "There's nothing to base that on... as far as I know."

This was only after she clearly said "No", when asked if Obama was a Muslim.

Make sense?

by leisure 2008-06-09 02:12PM | 0 recs
Googling...

Googling "Obama Hillary New Hampshire", this comes up.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2007/12/hillary_campaign_acknowl edges_that_hillary_backer_passed_along_o bama_madrassa_email.php

Hillary Campaign Acknowledges That County Chair Backing Hillary Passed Along Obama Muslim Smear Email
By Greg Sargent - December 5, 2007, 1:31PM

There were other incidents like this.  I was looking for the New Hampshire one, but, hey, yeah, there was the Iowa one, too, and many reports of canvassers doing the same thing.

Was Hillary Clinton directly responsible for this?  I sincerely doubt it, but there is a slim possibility because politics can be just that dirty.  Regardless, though, this is the kind of things people CLOSE to the Clintons were doing because they thought it would help their candidate.

It's much sillier to tar Obama for some dick in the audience waving an "Iron My Shirt" sign than it is to take umbrage at this.

by Dumbo 2008-06-09 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Googling...

Just to make it clear for anyone who does not know, the "Iron My Shirt" guys are Boston-area radio DJs.  They were on paid time when they wore the shirts.  It was a radio shock jock ploy, nothing more.  It was not some secret evidence that all Obama supporters are sexists.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Googling...

Personally I don't think that Clinton supporters faulted Obama for the shock jocks, I think they faulted some of the Obama supporters for saying stuff like

"It was a radio shock jock ploy, nothing more."

It was a blatantly sexist ploy, and comments downplaying such events wouldn't exactly inspire friendly feelings amongst the people who were disgusted by it.

by Ernst 2008-06-09 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Googling...

I think everyone thought it was disgusting. But a good many Clinton supporters apparently thought that it was not only disgusting but then blamed Obama directly for the actions of a couple shock jocks. I, for one, thought the best course of action would be to totally ignore it in the hope that the publicity stunt wouldn't work.

by Geiiga 2008-06-09 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Googling...

Hanging the "shock jocks" up by their genitals would have been good too.

(and I'm an Obama supporter)

by Bush Bites 2008-06-09 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Googling...

You've got two different points in your commen:

But a good many Clinton supporters apparently thought that it was not only disgusting but then blamed Obama directly for the actions of a couple shock jocks.

I think that is an example of perception bias,  that the very few Clinton supporters who thought so have made a larger impression in your perception then warrented according to their numbers. I've seen maybe half a dozen Clinton supporters express that opinion tops. It was more a case of having a single commenter leaving dozens of comments. Which makes it seem a more widespread then it is.

I think everyone thought it was disgusting. <..> I, for one, thought the best course of action would be to totally ignore it in the hope that the publicity stunt wouldn't work.

Normally most democrats firmly denounce such actions. The fact that so many Obama supporters either though it best to ignore it, or actively downplayed it made a lot of Clinton people feel like such sexist was not condemned by and even tactically supported by some of the Obama supporters. Surely you can see that the appearence was unfortuneatly.

by Ernst 2008-06-10 12:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Googling...

I think the difference is that Obama supporters (who are more likely to be young) see that both sexism and racism have slowly started to fade.  Neither will ever go away fully, and there is still a long way to go.  But many of us realize that jumping up and pointing out every instances of racism and sexism and saying "There's one!  That's bad!" is not the best way to deal with it.

There was a good article in this week's Time (by Joe Klein I think?) about pessimistic feminists who think women are as bad off as they were 30 years ago and optimistic feminists who see things changing.  The pessimists voted for Hillary; the optimists voted for Obama.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 03:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Googling...

so that makes it OK how again?

by trytobereal 2008-06-09 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Googling...

No one ever said it's ok.  It was ridiculously sexist.  And it should remind us of the impact of the MSM (not that these guys were really mainstream).  But let's not pretend that these guys were even "real" people expressing their personal beliefs.  Not only were they not Obama supporters somehow being sexist.  Not only were they not regular joes illustrating the willingness of men to be outrightly and blatantly sexist.  They were radio shock jocks not expressing their own personal views.  They were trying to be as outrageous as possible to get ratings.  Not unlike Rush Limbaugh.  So let's not pretend like that event somehow illuminated the secret world of women-hating men, because I call bullshit.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I've seen the whole clip. Obama didn't say Clinton was a racist either, that doesn't keep people from being angry at his for not doing so.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

and Jesse Jackson, Jr, in addition to saying she didn't cry over Katrina, also mentions her not crying over the Iraq war veterans and other people as well. But for Clinton supporters who want to twist it, he said that she doesn't care about black people. He didn't (not that his argument wasn't specious, it was, but for different reasons).

by vadasz 2008-06-09 11:32AM | 0 recs
She says why

right here.  She's hoping apparently that Hillary will wrest the nomination from Obama.

by Beltway Dem 2008-06-09 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: She says why

She's hoping supers will spontaneously realize their dreadful mistake. I'm not too worried about that happening.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 05:25PM | 0 recs
Yeah,

I was incredibly in touch with her during the course of the campaign.  She was so committed to a Democratic victory in the fall.  I feel some disappointment that she didn't follow through on what she was saying on a regular and consistent basis throughout the campaign.  I was talking about McCain and sitting it out; she always told me I had to go with the party.  Here I am with the Party, and I miss her.

by Beltway Dem 2008-06-09 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

That's not all of it. Alegre posted on a diary yesterday and her point was that the DNC stole the nomination.  And that's an absurdity.  The rules and bylaws committee decision didn't change anything fundamental in the delegate count. And the superdelegates ratified the winner of the pledged delegates, just as had been predicted for months on end.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:18AM | 0 recs
Chuck Todd sort of agrees

yesterday he said Pelosi and Dean were against Clinton.

by catfish2 2008-06-09 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Chuck Todd sort of agrees

What Pelosi and Dean were against was having the winner of pledged delegates not get the nomination. They were very clear about that a long time ago, but Clinton kept giving her supporters the impression that this wasn't in fact important to superdelegates. Clinton led her supporters on and created a lot of anger that is now in evidence. If she had been honest with them, we'd be in a different place today.  

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:29AM | 0 recs
Todd said it was more than that

He said that there was a large number in the Democratic party that were for the "not Clinton" candidate.  

I don't really find that hard to believe;  the Clintons made a lot of enemies in their time, and that wasn't limited to the Republicans.  The 2005 change of power from DNC chair McAluffe to Dean and 2006's Democratic revival made it clear that their style of politics was faling out of favor from the Democratic party.  

by Dracomicron 2008-06-09 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Todd said it was more than that

Overturning the pledged delegates would have been hugely controversial and hard to defend. So, why do that at all, particularly for someone who had made some in the party quite unhappy. A lot of party leaders weren't happy that they had had to defend Bill Clinton when he got into trouble with misleading a grand jury about his sex life.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:46AM | 0 recs
Don't get me wrong...

I'm not saying that Obama didn't win it fair and square.  Quite the opposite; like every other part of the primary, he took advantage of favorable elements.

The DNC wanted a good candidate who wasn't a Clinton.  Obama gave one to them.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't get me wrong...

I see it differently. On the one hand, it is possible that she got tagged by Dean and Pelosi due to her membership in the DLC, the group that they had worked to wrest control from. More probably, however, I think the issue was the rules themselves: how they were formed, and how they were treated.

Clinton supporters held a clear plurality on the RBC when they unanimously voted to strip Michigan of its delegates (with the exception of one Obama supporter from Florida). Thus, they had an equal hand in creating the rules, and Clinton was long believed to be the obvious beneficiary of the front-loaded primary schedule. However, when Clinton refused to have her name removed from the Michigan ballot, that raised many red flags in the DNC. Even though her surrogates had an equal hand in passing down the sentence, she was leaving herself wiggle room to secure an unfair advantage. She basically hung the DNC out to try by making the rules, claiming that Michigan's primary wouldn't count, and then changing course and saying it did. She made the DNC look like the bad guy, and you can hear lots of ardent Clinton supporters at other sites (TalkLeft comes to mind) declaring that they no longer consider themselves Democrats.

My view is that Clinton set up the DNC, not vice versa.

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 10:34AM | 0 recs
It was a power struggle

There were stories earlier in the year about Bill Clinton going to meet with Karl Rove in 2007 that always fostered some paranoia; it's not hard to believe that he was looking for tips to beat the non-DLC wing of the party.

I'm not going to say that one side "set up" the other when it was pretty clearly a shadow war on both sides.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-09 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Todd said it was more than that

Thank you Donna Brazile.

by TxDem08 2008-06-09 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Todd said it was more than that

So many here make it sound like Pelosi, Dean and other Democratic politicians who weren't openly holding Hillary's hands were actively against her. Or that even if they were actively against her, that would -- somehow -- be wrong.

It's called a democracy and a party. The people complaining about the DNC "taking" it from Hillary were the same ones PRAYING that the DNC and the superdels would TAKE it from Obama, since Hillary was obviously the strongest candidate, etc. etc.

Damned if they did, damned if they didn't, damned if anything other than the Planned Clinton Convention of 2008 didn't take place in Denver.

Sorry it didn't work out that way, but who cares now. Time to move on. If I hear one more complaint about the 'vast left-wing conspriacy' I'm seriously going to start mailing some scripts for lithium out there...

by Lettuce 2008-06-09 10:17AM | 0 recs
Don't blame me, it was Chucky T

That was Todd's report, not mine.  I think that it wasn't a conspiracy; it was more that they weren't sold on Clinton from the starting gun, and the "inevitability" armor essentially cracked as soon as she displayed weakness.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-09 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't blame me, it was Chucky T

No blaming, just ranting on the existance of the line of thought. Sorry!

by Lettuce 2008-06-09 11:48AM | 0 recs
No, it's Dean who is responsible because

of his allegeance to MoveOn.

I was getting begging letters from the DNC and Obama even though I haven't contributed one red cent to them since Bush's first state of the union address when I saw Kennedy literally hugging him thus legitimizing him. I found that unacceptable! The only people I have given to their campaigns since then was Dean and Clinton - so the only way they got my email and physical address was through Dean. It was payback to MoveOn from his great internet success when he ran. There is no doubt that Obama was the DNC's favorite - Clinton had an extremely hard climb to the nomination simply by the fact that polls after polls showed that it was harder for a woman to be elected than an AA.

by suzieg 2008-06-09 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Todd said it was more than that

The reasons for "Not Clinton" depend.

I was "Not Clinton," to some degree, but only because I feared a general election campaign with her as the nominee. I have confidence in her ability as a possible President someday.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:39AM | 0 recs
I was &quot;not clinton&quot; because of the war.

I think that's why most "not Clinton" people in the blogosphere were "not Clinton."  The sexist thing was mostly a product of the wingnuts and the low-information voters that vote based on "gut feeling," about whose character they like.  That
"gut feeling" thing becomes an easy excuse for sexism OR racism.

Hillary lost this because of the war.  I feel sorry for her that she was the victim of any sexist attacks, and I am sure most Hillary supporters are equally sorry that Obama was the victim of racism or religious smears.  But the issues really did count in this campaign.

by Dumbo 2008-06-09 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Chuck Todd sort of agrees
I don't agree. It was very clear from the start that superdelegates were here 'just in case'. That they were going to endorse the candidate leading in pledged delegates - unless there was a huge problem with that candidate.

Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign started to try and confuse this issue so soon as it became clear Hillary was unlikely to obtain a majority of pledged delegates. They devised the strange concept of 'automatic delegates' Hillary even floated the idea that pledged delegates were actually free to vote the way they liked.

But things had always been clear from the start and supers wentto the candidate with pledged delegates. And the people in charge could advocate no other course than that, as clearly both candidates were excellent.

by french imp 2008-06-09 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet.

Alegre is welcome to be part of all of us who now support Obama, many of whom supported other candidates.  In the end, it is up to her.  It may take some time.  We have plenty of that.  I think she will come around in the end.  

by TomP 2008-06-09 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

We have an opponent and it isn't us.  His name is John McCain.

by niksder 2008-06-09 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

What are you doing? Is this a campaign against Alegre?

by soyousay 2008-06-09 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Personally I don't wait on my tippy toes to see who blogs around here. If someone wants to show up, cool. If not, also cool.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Alegre isn't running for office.

by soyousay 2008-06-09 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

But she ran a long scam on this site.

Isn't bundling illegal according to the FEC?

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I don't know what you're talking about.

by soyousay 2008-06-09 09:36AM | 0 recs
I'm not sure that's correct

She always linked directly to the Clinton donation page, did she not?  

A bundler would want to retain some sort of credit for the donations, wouldn't she?

I have no idea what alegre's moral code allows, but I seem to recall her links going directly to the Clinton website.  That suggests that she's not a big time money bundler.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-09 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure that's correct

I remember the legality being discussed but legality aside what else could it have been, although I do remember bundler was a term people agreed on.

If you asked me what Alegre's motivation in one word was I would have to have said money.

Some of her diaries were based just on that.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 09:45AM | 0 recs
My guess?

I think that she's a paid blogger.  The reason we won't hear much from her anymore is because the paychecks stopped coming on friday.

There's a significant difference between a bundler and a paid blogger.  She was hired for her blog formatting skills rather than her fundraising networks.

alegre writes some dang slick diaries with pictures and embedded links and everything.  The quality and quantity of her offerings leads me to believe that she's a professional.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-09 09:49AM | 0 recs
and there are no paid

Obama bloggers here or elsewhere?  It's the times.  Frankly, when so many people who claim to be young are consistently on the blogs during the day and evening, I wonder.  I was always working when I was young - and in school at night.  

It's legitimate - though they should be identified as such.

by Xanthe 2008-06-09 10:23AM | 0 recs
Not sure Obama needs paid bloggers

Well, outside of the ones that are up-front about it.

Thing about Obama is that his supporters are largely net-savvy and enthusiastic to share their thoughts and feelings online.  Thus, besides the Obama bloggers that are forewardly obvious about it, I don't think that you'll see paid Obama bloggers around.

I wouldn't read anything into when people are posting.  I work at a full-time job, from which I have some time to post online between tasks.  I expect many are in a similar situation.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-09 10:37AM | 0 recs
I didn't have time when I

was working - or at least the kind of time some of the bloggers I suspect to be Obama paid bloggers seem to have.

But really what is wrong with it?  As long as they're identified as paid blogging.

You're right about being comfortable with the net.  That is a plus -  

Since the Obama campaign has money and can pay bloggers - I certainly suspect there are many such posters - even though he has the nomination now.  I disagree that we haven't and won't see such posters.  But again - so what?

by Xanthe 2008-06-09 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: and there are no paid

I'm here a lot during the day and at night because I'm full time in grad school and my schedule is crazy.  I imagine there are quite a few like me.  But I'm not paid and I don't really write diaries (just one).  I am a bit obsessed with this website though!

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure that's correct

Good grief. Lots of campaign actions are based on money - fundraising is very important.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:40AM | 0 recs
One could be paid and still

be a believer, no?  

by Xanthe 2008-06-09 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure that's correct

Alegre was a Hillraiser.  In this diary she says:

Over the past few weeks I've been stepping up my efforts to raise money for Hillary's campaign via my HillRaisers link, and it's been going pretty well.  The folks here among the Net Roots are incredibly generous and Hillary's got some amazing backers on this and other discussion boards and blogs.  In increments of $10, $20, $50 and even one or two $1,000+ donations, Hillary's online supporters have stepped up to the plate when it counts.  Because of our joint efforts, I've raised just shy of the $20,000 mark and I'm not letting up until she wins this thing in November.

If I understand it correctly, you had to bundle 100k to earn the official "HillRaiser" title though.  

by fogiv 2008-06-09 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure that's correct

God DAMN

Thats alot of money.

How cool would it be if you could walk around and brag that you raised ONE HUNDRED THOUSDAND dollars for a campaign.

Thats nuts!

and so is Allegre, but still props to her for bundling/hillrazing whateveryoucalle it 100K dollars......

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure that's correct

I don't think sending supporters to donate is "Bundling."

I see bundling as using your own connections to secure lots of larger donations (like in a law firm.) That's an impression, I'm no expert.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure that's correct

The diary that I linked wasn't all that old, and she was at that point hoping to break $20k.  I don't think she got anywhere near the $100k mark.  Still, $20k-ish is nothing to scoff at.

Being part of the HillRaisers network is probably what gave her access to all the "conference calls" she spoke about, in addition to providing a direct conduit for campaign spin and talking points (e.g. sourcing HillaryHub endlessly).

Ironically, the whole HillRaisers thing is based on the Rove tactic employed for Bush.  Remember the Pioneers and Rangers bundlers?  Check out this Politico story on it.

The president's Pioneers and Rangers, bundlers who generated $100,000 and $200,000, respectively, have now been replaced by Hillraisers, bundlers who are hoping to raise as much as $1 million for Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton.

by fogiv 2008-06-09 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure that's correct

Crazy.

I didn't know much about the Hillraisers.

The very name gives me shudders, though.  I keep expecting Pinhead to come out of some magic box that Clinton keeps.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-09 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure that's correct

Heh.

by fogiv 2008-06-09 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Bundling is totally legal, and just because Alegre supported the wrong candidate does not make her advocacy a "scam".

by Adam B 2008-06-09 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Truth amidst the partisan haze, always a good thing.

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?
Hillary wasn't the "wrong" candidate.
She was the one who lost, that's all.
by skohayes 2008-06-09 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Fair enough.  I would never criticize her for the "sin" of being a determined advocate.

by Adam B 2008-06-09 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Since when is passionate, informed support of a candidate a scam?

As for "bundling" it is totally legal.  If it weren't, Obama would be in a whole lotta trouble.

by Tolstoy 2008-06-09 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I never said it was illegal, I had heard that bundling was against FEC rules.

My use of the word SCAM:

Alegre most certainly scammed this site and the people who I respond to now.

Her only goal was to come here and foment anger against the media, the DNC, and Barack Obama and/or anything that possibly stood in the way and to raise money.

Her plan was not to participate in discussion or discource since I NEVER NEVER NEVER saw her do that even once, not with supporters of either side.

She scammed this site badly, but in the end she helped pay the bills.
Im sure the admin is sorry to see her go.

Just funny how these "untouchables" came in and destroyed this site and made it the laughing stock of the progressive blogosphere,

then they totally bounce and leave you here to defend them.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

She participated with her diaries. No, I didn't see her in a big back-and-forth, but that's not for everyone, and no reason to jump on her.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I think many of her diaries were absolutely ludicrous.  But since I think she actually believed everything she wrote, I wouldn't call it a scam.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Not at all. This is trying to say that I think I better understand what's so difficult about this for some.

The fact that I disagree with her doesn't mean I can't respect her position.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Great. So why not refer to Clinton supporters in general rather than singling out one person? Apparently, she bugs the hell out of you.

by soyousay 2008-06-09 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

well, she bugged the hell out of me. I think she has intellectual integrity problems which makes me not all that interested in reconciling with her, or bring her into the fold.

by Metrobot 2008-06-09 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Well, it was her post with that video that changed my opinion, and I know she's of prominence here, so I thought her post there was worth sharing here.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?
What's your problem with Falsehood's diary? It was very nice to Alegre. I really don't see what's wrong with it.
by french imp 2008-06-09 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Yes. The diary which attempts to empathize with and understand Clinton supporters is an attack on Alegre.

by really not a troll 2008-06-09 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

These's no reason to single out one person.

by soyousay 2008-06-09 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

There's no reason not to, either, especially one as prolific as Alegre (was).

by Black Anus 2008-06-09 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

You're talking about the person who until recently often controlled 60% of the reclist on this site (ie 3 diaries on it at once). Alegre is relevant as an individual. She's more than just a regular Hillary supporter to the MyDD community.

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I am actually really offended by Alegre, why did she leave this site all of a sudden?

It was true, she was just a bundler using this site.

I might be cynical, but that is ALL the credit I give her.

A cowardly bundler dressed as a blogger, a blogger who never had any discussions and used misogynistic language against men AND women repeatedly.

TexasDarling is a POS too,  she is rolling around with her Coprophagic buddies at noquarter.com looking for the next way to destroy the Democratic party.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

What are you doing on noquarter? :D

Didn't she post an old commercial of Meeks endorsing Obama? It's pretty tough stuff but it was an ad that Obama put out.

by soyousay 2008-06-09 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I went to NQ looking for Alegre, I missed her, well I didn't, was just dying to hear what she would say.

I didn't expect her to cross to the dark side, but I am totally not surprised.

I am curious how NoQuarter stacks against the "republican blogs" as far as views.
I know they are running weak, so it would be funny Larry Johnson beat them at their own game.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Damnit, no props for the use of the word "Coprophagic" when referring to Larry Johnson in my diary?

Man I had to look that up on Wikipedia!  gimme mojo!

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?
|
| (the line)          -----> YOU
|
by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Hey you DID rec the stand for alegre right?

by nogo postal 2008-06-09 01:11PM | 0 recs
Please

Those idiot sexist chanters were part of a radio station stunt; they were not supporters of Obama or any other candidate.

by Adam B 2008-06-09 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Please

Of course. And the campaign didn't say anything sexist at any point.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Please

I agree; yet there's still a feeling that it was his responsibility to speak out. I don't think he needed to do so, but I understand why some might think that.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Please

Well, I don't understand why anyone would think that. I didn't expect Hillary Clinton to speak out against attacks against Obama.  It's up to the candidate and her or his campaign to stick up for themselves. That's how it always has been.

It's a double standard to expect people to speak out on behalf of Hillary Clinton when no one has ever done that before for a candidate during the nomination contest.  Why would anyone expect that she be treated differently than any other candidate? I sure hope it's not because she's a woman because that would be a sexist, Victorian standard.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Please

Didn't Clinton speak out to defend Obama when Bush made his comments in Israel?  In fact I remember the howling of a few people here about the fact that it took her 8 hours to speak up.

by JustJennifer 2008-06-09 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Please

Yeah that was after NC and IN.  The tone of her campaign was different after that, she pretty much stopped attacking him after seeing the writing on the wall.

by kasjogren 2008-06-09 10:24AM | 0 recs
For the record.

Bush's speech before the Knesset was an attack on all of his political opponents.  They were especially focussed on Obama, as Bush's aides admitted, but they could have easily been read as an attack on Clinton as well.

I wasn't someone who was howling.  I was glad that she did respond.  However, I don't think her speaking out against that is very comparable to what we are talking about here.  It was a defense of the Democratic party more than it was a defense of Obama specifically.

I remember some howling here myself (some by people who are posting in this very thread), but it was about how Bush never mentioned Obama by name.  Therefore Obama was "jumping the gun" or some nonsense.
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/16/1 6229/8619/88#88

by you like it 2008-06-09 11:20AM | 0 recs
Oh, but Hillary was obligated to determine whether

Obama is or is not a muslim?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, but Hillary was obligated to determine whe

I am sure that if someone had asked Obama "Should Hillary's focus in her life be to iron my shirt?" He would not respond by saying "Not as far as I know" no matter how many times they asked him.

I don't expect him to respond to that kind of crap, but if directly asked, he ought to say something, yes.

by Darknesse 2008-06-09 10:13AM | 0 recs
And the irrational and ridiculous Hillary hatred

continues.

This really isn't helping Obama.

Why can't you people just come out and say that either (i) your outrage was fake, or (ii) it was impressed upon you by someone else whose outrage was fake, like Keith Olbermann or Markos Moulitsas?

Why continue to use fabricated talking points to make Hillary Clinton look bad?

Every time someone continues to push the propaganda that Hillary's answer to the Obama muslim question was substandard in ANY way, shape or form, it makes me less inclined to bother to leave work and vote for Obama in November.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: And the irrational and ridiculous Hillary hatr

I am saying that if he was directly asked, he would probably have defended her, but he would not have done so without being asked.

HOWEVER, say what you want, but Obama is an incredibly skilled politician, and I don't see him even giving his opponents that sound bite to focus their anger on.

Notice that with a few exceptions, every soundbite Obama is attacked with is from something one of his supporters said, or maybe his Spouse.

by Darknesse 2008-06-09 10:33AM | 0 recs
She's likeable enough. nt

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: She's likeable enough. nt

Yeah, that was a bad one. And so was Hillary's "pillow" crack. There's never been a campaign that didn't say something a little mean about the other guy. "Annie Oakley", not a good one, "Celestial chorus", pretty bad. As Bill Clinton once said, "if you can't stand the heat..."

I'll acknowledge some of Hillary's misstatements were overstated by my side. Personally, however, I never bought into those lines of attack UNTIL she went after the unholy trio of his patriotism (flag pins), his religion (Wright), and his intellect (the anti-intellectual comments about "elitism"). Also, I was totally willing to let all that silly stuff from before South Carolina go by until Geraldine Ferraro. I'll grant you that the Clintons are absolutely not racists if you acknowledge that Ferraro is.

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 10:51AM | 0 recs
Honestly, I haven't followed the Ferraro thing too

much, since I don't watch Countdown, read a lot of Huffington Post, or listen to Air American anymore.  I can't even remember her exact words.  I'd have to see what she said compared to what Kerry said, and then make a determination.  But if what she said was worse than what Kerry said, I'd consider calling her a racist.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Honestly, I haven't followed the

Ferraro: "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Suddenly black candidates for president are lucky? They have it easy? But never mind that, she thinks the only significant reason why Obama became the frontrunner is because of the color of his skin? I'd call that very dismissive.

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Honestly, I haven't followed the

And then she cropped up on a couple of other occasions with a similar message just for good measure.

by oliver cromwell 2008-06-09 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Honestly, I haven't followed the

Agreed.  You can't point call Chris Matthews sexist for saying Hillary's benefited from her husband's infidelity and then turn around and say Ferraro's comment wasn't racist.  They're essentially saying the same thing.  Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she was a man; Barack wouldn't be where he is if he was white.

by sneakers563 2008-06-09 03:17PM | 0 recs
Reagan was transformative,but who is Bill Clinton?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan was transformative,but

Well, Reagan transformed this nation in service to conservativism. We need to do for progressivism what Reagan did for conservativism.

Bill Clinton (a man of many positives) transformed the Democratic Party - he made it more conservative. The reasoning goes that he had to do this to stay viable after the Gingrich revolution of 1994. Either way, though, it did not endear him to those who seek to make the country more progressive.

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:00AM | 0 recs
Or this

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) dismissed an appearance made by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) on "Meet the Press" this morning as "political point scoring," condemning his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination for seeking to recast the events of the last several years.

"What we saw this morning was why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play," said Obama in a conference call announcing the endorsement of Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) "[Clinton] started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending some time rewriting it."

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Or this

What's wrong with saying that?

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:01AM | 0 recs
Its calling her a liar without using the word. nt

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Its calling her a liar without

I'm confused - was he too harsh or not harsh enough?

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:27AM | 0 recs
Weak. Very weak. n/t

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-09 01:31PM | 0 recs
Or this:

"I have been open about my reasons for opposing the war, but one of my opponents in this race, Senator Clinton, has tried, I believe, to rewrite history," Obama said at a roundtable discussion on veterans issues with several military officers here. "She voted for a resolution called and I quote, 'a resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces again Iraq,' and now she is saying that she wasn't really voting for war. She cast her vote after failing to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, ..which raised enough doubts for the majority of Democratic senators who read it that they voted against the war. We need accountability in our leaders. You can't undo a vote for war just because a war stops being popular."

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Or this:

Truer words never spoken? What's the problem here?

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:01AM | 0 recs
Again, its a way of calling someone a liar. nt

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Again, its a way of calling someone a liar. nt

What's the proper way to say, "You mischaracterized my position"?

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:26AM | 0 recs
So she didn't vote for the war?

What's your point?  

She didn't make the comment about nuking Iran?  Guess that was a figment of our collective imagination?

by Regenman 2008-06-09 11:02AM | 0 recs
Or these:

Sen. Barack Obama, just now, in Columbus, MS, on the vice presidential talk coming from the Clintons:

"I don't understand. If I'm not ready, how is it do you think I would be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?"
Obama suggested that the Clintons are trying to "bamboozle" and "hoodwink" the voters.
_

"Around election time, the candidates can't do enough for you," Obama told the Alliance for American Manufacturing in Pittsburgh. "They'll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer."

The remark was an obvious attack on Clinton, who had a beer and a shot of whiskey at a campaign stop in Indiana while criticizing Obama for being elitist.

"But if those same candidates are taking millions of dollars in contributions from the PACs and lobbyists, ask yourself, who are they going to be toasting once the election is over?" the Illinois senator added.
_

Or the time he basically called her a fucking liar that the American people cannot trust.  

Read this, and tell me he wasn't calling her an opportunist who will tell you anything you want to hear and then vote against your interests:

Obama said he was not just trying to point out policy differences.

"I have to make a larger point," he said. "It is easy to be for policies that help working families, when it's popular on the campaign trail. But the American people don't want a president whose plans change with the politics of the moment. Sen. Clinton has said she is ready to lead from day one. But it's important on day one to get it right, whether you are talking about a war or economic proposals, and one of the things I have tried to do, I've been less worried about making political points on these things, but getting them right. That's the kind of leadership that I intend to offer as president of the United States: somebody who will be straight with you and it get it right the first time."

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Or these:

He was criticizing her position on NAFTA. And that is something she in fact changed her position on. I'm getting confused, here, is your point that Clinton deserved criticism or that Obama delivered it?

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:04AM | 0 recs
Its one of the best examples of calling her a liar

without using the word liar.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Its one of the best examples

That sounds charitable to me.

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Its one of the best examples of calling her a

It may have been an attack, but it certainly was an honest one.

by Darknesse 2008-06-09 12:44PM | 0 recs
Utterly ridiculous

if you're trying to make the point that Obama was stepping over some line. These examples are par for the course in intra-party primaries. Nothing extraordinary at all. She offered as much and more.

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-09 01:36PM | 0 recs
Oh noes!

Heaven forbid a politician should be called out for flip-flopping when it is politically convenient.  I imagine Obama would/will get called out on it if he changes his mind about meeting with Ahmadinejad or if he changes his health care proposal to appease Hillary voters (a change I wholeheartedly support, by the way).

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:31PM | 0 recs
Or this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused rival Hillary Clinton of saber rattling toward Iran on Sunday and compared her approach to that of unpopular President George W. Bush.

more stories like this"I think it's language that's reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber rattling," Obama said of Clinton's threat to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Or this:

I'm not here to convince you of anything.  I don't even know you.  

That said, I think if you take a more open look at the quotes you googled, you'll find that they are normal primary kinds of statements.  It happens all the time, everywhere, in every kind of campaign.  

by ottto 2008-06-09 01:34PM | 0 recs
Uh...

she voted for Kyl-Lieberman. How exactly would you characterize that if not "sabre-rattling"?

This is getting flat-out silly.

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-09 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Please

Falsehood, he might have spoken out when the guy on MSNBC said she was pimping out her daughter. He has daughters. It would have been a perfect time. Obama benefitted from the sexism and did nothing to stop it.

by linfar 2008-06-09 10:16AM | 0 recs
David Shuster

was suspended for saying that, and apologized profusely.  As did Keith Olbermann in no uncertain terms.

But why the hell should Barack Obama say anything?  Should Hillary have spoken up every time some jackass on Fox News says it "behooves" Obama to wear a flag pin?

by corph 2008-06-09 10:32AM | 0 recs
And how

did he benefit from sexism any more than she benefitted from racism? Should she have apologized for all those folks in the cracker belt region of WV that were caught on tape saying horribly racist things or claiming that he was a Muslim?

It's ridiculous to suggest that the candidates should be responsible  or even answerable for people unassociated with their respective campaigns.

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-09 01:57PM | 0 recs
Is there anything in the video

above that connects with the Obama campaign or Obama himself? Alegre was at such a loss to connect anything to Obama that she had to turn Michigan-Florida into a sexist meme out of desparation.

When challenged Alegre could never connect anything sexist to Obama himself or to his campaign, and she had lots of opportunities to do so. This is exactly why she is slinging arrows from afar.

by 79blondini 2008-06-09 09:39AM | 0 recs
What?

So that makes it OK?  And no offense, I know its hard to pay attention to for your half of this party, but that was by far the least offensive sexism that came out of this campaign.

by linc 2008-06-09 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: What?

No, it wasn't okay, but nor did it have anything to do with any of Clinton's opponents.

There are no "halves" in the Democratic Party.  There is one party, in which some people preferred Obama and some preferred Clinton.

by Adam B 2008-06-09 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Please

stop putting your facts in the slander. It makes the soup taste bad.

by Lettuce 2008-06-09 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

the question is if this site will now become just another echo-chamber for Obama...like the Orange site many of us left behind months ago.

Already, the Obama supporters are cheering louder and louder. Hillary supporters like myself are now "undecided". We are being "dissed" for even considering McCain, well, okay, but we just don't have much respect for Obama.  He is not experienced enough to be President.  He thinks he is.  His supporters think he is.  But we think not.  We have been saying this for months. Whole states, in CLOSED Primaries, chose Hillary 2:1.

I don't feel that I have to "obey" Hillary's "edict" to vote for Obama.  She is just doing what is expected of her.

I am now undecided.  I don't like Obama, and I like his supporters even less. On the issues, yes, Democrats win.  But then if all Americans voted solely on issues, Republicans would never win. Voting for President is more complex than that. We want to vote for someone we have confidence in. Major challenges could come up. Is that person really up to the job?

I knew that Hillary was/is up to the job. Obama hasn't convinced me. And his supporters are hurting him more than helping him.

by WolfmanJack 2008-06-09 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

Regarding experience:

There have been truly great presidents with less experience in elected office than Obama, including one of the greatest, Abraham Lincoln.

Experience has to be weighed against other factors, including, quite importantly, what the president wants to accomplish in office.  What Obama wants to do is nearly identical with what Hillary Clinton wanted to do. Both Democrats have very, very different goals than John McCain.  Personally I would vote based on policy goals.  I've been disappointed in the past about the nominee who was chosen, but I voted based on the policies that would be pursued.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:25AM | 0 recs
It was never about the &quot;experience&quot;.

If it was, said supporters would have been for McCain from the outset. Hillary's resume looks a lot more like Barack's than McCain's, in terms of years of legislative experience.

This is about gut-instinct politics, where you've already decided who appeals best to you, but need more explicit or honorable reasons to attribute your decisions to in polite company. No claimed diehard support for HRC based solely on experience would hold water in a reasoned debate.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-09 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: It was never about the &quot;experience&quot;.

I think that may be true.  I actually think that most of us (the most vocal on either side) made our decision about our candidate based on one or two issues.

Some examples:

I think a lot of people supported Hillary entirely or primarily because her health care proposal is closer to universal coverage and that was the number one priority for many of these supporters.

I think a lot of us Obama supporters want the country to move much further to the left and we appreciated his nuanced approach to foreign policy.  That, and his emphasis on wholescale education reform, swayed me.  I like Hillary's health care plan better, but health care is not my number one priority.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: It was never about the &quot;experience&quot;.

What you say may be true, though I can't personally relate to anyone that makes their choice strictly on a policy issue. While these are important, I'd like to think that they help paint the picture of the candidate, rather than they spell out any specific future policy expectations.

While I too prefer universal coverage, I would fully expect either candidate to vet their policies with advisors and analysts before making any recommendations - not to mention that these would still need to be ushered through congress, following which they could look very different from the original versions. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if we end up with a Hillary-esque healthcare proposal under an Obama administration - especially if she ends up being his healthcare czar.

That's why I've never understood the appeal of policy wonkery in campaigns. I'm opinionated on a few larger policy issues (war, economy, healthcare) but there are far more (that may not impact or interest me) on which I'm not. For these it's more important to be comfortable with the person making the decisions than it is to be informed of every last policy clause that may or may not change in the future anyway.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-10 11:44AM | 0 recs
You mean his &quot;me too&quot; campaign ?

by suzieg 2008-06-09 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

" Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free. "  ( Ronald Reagan )

- Its a free country , you are free to do as you please.

by lori 2008-06-09 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

Quoting Ronald Reagan, lori. That's just great.

Did you think he was a great President?

by JoeW 2008-06-09 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

Its immaterial if I think it was or not.

The question is if I agree or disagree with the quote .

I agree with it.

by lori 2008-06-09 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

if i think * he *

by lori 2008-06-09 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

George Washington had zero experience... what a disaster his presidency was!  

I'd prefer Roe v. Wade not be overturned, thank you.

by HillarysDesire 2008-06-09 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

I'm buying stock in A&H Hangers, just in case.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:37PM | 0 recs
That comment is truly offensive

Women died.  Women are still dying.  And to you it's a joke.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-09 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: That comment is truly offensive

No more than the Kool Aid references.  And while it's crass to make light of it, I'm not trying to do that.  I'm actually hoping that mentioning the reality of abortion if McCain wins the Presidency.  Because he will work to put ultra-conservative justices on the Supreme Court.  And then more women will die.  I support abortion rights and I don't want them going away because some Hillary supporters are upset that she lost.  That's what pisses me off.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 07:34PM | 0 recs
I'm not comparing comments.

And I've never made comments such as you referred to.  I'm talking about that ONE comment - and it was offensive - no excuse.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-09 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not comparing comments.

I'm not blaming you for Kool-Aid references.  Just pointing out that no one has a problem with Hillary supporters referencing a mass murder/suicide to explain why people support Obama.  

As for the coat hanger reference, I stand by my point.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 03:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

The problem is that the decision you refer to is not made in a vaccuum.  The vote is not whether Obama is up to the job or not - the vote is whether Obama or McCain will be the next President.  So the decision isn't if Obama is qualified; it's whether you think it's better for the country to have a President Obama or a President McCain.  Whether you think Obama is qualified or unqualified should only be an issue if you think McCain is qualified.  Otherwise, it's irrelevant.

by ThinkerT 2008-06-09 10:09AM | 0 recs
Good point...

Also, I'd submit that being "qualified" isn't an either/or proposition, rather, it's a sliding scale.  One candidate for a job might be more qualified than another, though both job candidates are nonetheless "qualified."  I put qualified in quotes because being qualified isn't an independent basis for hiring someone... You also have to ask: "Qualified for what?"  If you want a candidate who can competently pick off where Bush is leaving off, there no question that McCain is the best qualified for that purpose.  However, if you're looking for the most qualified candidate to lead the country in a progressive direction it's a no-brainer that Obama is the most qualified.  

Simply breaking the conversation down to "qualified" and "unqualified" is ridiculous and shows a lack of sincere thought and analysis of the issues.    

by froggyman 2008-06-09 10:45AM | 0 recs
Yes, yes, yes!
Thank you.
"Qualified" is such a bullshit word that people have been throwing around a lot lately.
Richard Nixon sure as hell was "qualified" by most standards. George Bush the Elder was, too. Herbert Hoover was highly qualified; most people at the time thought he might end up being among our greatest presidents. Calvin Coolidge was a mayor, a state legislator, a governor and a vice president, and all his experience tallied up before becoming president was more than 20 years. Our 2 worst presidents before Bush, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, had 2 of the longest and most impressive political careers of any of our presidents ever. Buchanan's in particular is the best political resume any president ever had: service in the Pennsylvania legislature; 10 years in the U.S. House, part of which time he was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; 10 years in the Senate; a term as Secretary of State; time as an ambassador; he was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, but turned down the nomination. If "qualifications" or "experience" meant anything, Buchanan should surely have been our greatest president by far. Instead he was the worst.
And then on the other hand, you have Theodore Roosevent, whose political experience was 2 years of being governor of New York and half a year as vice president before he took the presidency. You have Abraham Lincoln, who was one of the least "qualified" presidents ever, under this thinking. Franklin Roosevelt had 2 2 year terms as governor of New York and a short stint when he was about 35 as undersecretary of the Navy, and he was a New York state legislator for a while; not a whole lot of "experience" there, either. Woodrow Wilson's whole political career before the presidency was serving 2 years out of a 3 year term as governor of New Jersey.
Now there are some bad presidents who did not have long careers before being president, most notably Harding and Grant, and there are some good ones with loooong political careers, most notably Jefferson and Madison.
But overall, "qualification" and "experience" don't do anything to make presidents better, nor do lack thereof do anything to make them worse. It all depends on the person.
by Mumphrey 2008-06-09 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, yes, yes!

I care a hell of a lot less about "qualified" than I do about "asshole" or "non-asshole."  

McCain's use of the c-word for his wife (his wife!) marks him as an asshole, as does his joking about Bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.  He also ditched his first wife who waited for him all those years while he was in captivity.

Hillary is not an asshole.  Ruthless politician, yes, but that should be seen as a positive attribute, not a negative one.  She's a good person, she has good ideas, and she cares about people.  She and Obama are both good people.  I'm happy with either of them, I just prefer Obama's policies slightly more.  

Bush is also an asshole, I think we can all agree on that.

Reagan is a tough call.  He never seemed like an asshole, he just had mean-spirited, f#$k-you policies toward the poor and non-Americans.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:40PM | 0 recs
Hey Wolfman, since Obama is the nominee

then we should be rallying behind Obama, don't you think?  I fukcing hope this becomes an Obama echo chamber, this is a democratic site.  There is only one camp now, Hillary has joined the Obama camp.  

On another note, it looks like you just changed a few words in the body of your text, because it reads really outdated.  You should update the cut and paste info form your Mcsuperiors.

And if you are a democrat, then yeah, you sure will be dissed for thinking about voting for McCain, we don't want him to win here, we want Obama to win.  As you may notice, I think you're full of shit and I don't appreciate McBloggers on this site.

by KLRinLA 2008-06-09 11:50AM | 0 recs
i'll make sure

to stock up on coathangers before the next election, then.

seriously wolfman, please consider the ramifications of allowing mccain to win.  we can't afford it. look at the damage bush did in less than 8 years.  you really want to continue down that road?

i don't think you do.  please do some soul searching.

by annatopia 2008-06-09 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's
Obama is our nominee..
This IS a site supporting our Democratic Party..
...so yes we support our nominee..
as you are probably not a registered Democrat..
I can see you having a problem...
by nogo postal 2008-06-09 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

If you vote for McCain, you are supporting Republicans, and can be banned from this site.  That's a fact.  If you want to abstain from voting, I respect that.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's

Wolfman -

The primary is over.  A Democratic blog supporting the nominee against the republicans is supposed to be an "echo chamber."  Obama vs. Clinton, as long as it lasted, is over now.

If you are a true Clinton supporter, you would acknowledge (like Hillary) that the primary is over and you would support Barack Obama.  

Obama was my 3rd choice out of the Democratic primary field.

Some (not all) of you Clinton supporters need to get over yourselves and realize that you having to accept someone besides your "favored candidate" is a fact of life.  
 

by karagekun 2008-06-09 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

What is the fascination with Alegre anyway .

by lori 2008-06-09 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

She's a talented diarist, especially of the rally-the-troops variety, and she's widely respected by many people who are (or were) for Clinton.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I am talking about the fascination of some Obama supporters , not clinton supporters.

by lori 2008-06-09 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

The fascination is easy.

She was totally nuts, would say the most delusional things and then give zero responses to any questions.

It is what you get when you parot the talking points for McCaulifee and then beg for money on every single post.

The facination was also increased in that she represents an unshakeable power.

She would post diary and within 20 seconds 30-50 people we never see on the board would rec her diary.

Maybe it was the people who got admin warnings for saying something negative (I did once for correctly calling Feraro a bigot).

In the end of the day, for ME, Alegre represented all that I hated about the HRC campaign, although in the end I KNOW Alegre is far worse, the product of the campaign.

In the end I will remember her not as a blogger, but a VERY good bundler.

Her line about not clapping when Hillary endorsed Obama says it all.

Alegre?  Good riddance.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 09:37AM | 0 recs
I don't know why you got troll rated,

as your comments were spot on in my book.    Too much dishonesty perpetuated by that one, it was immediately noticeable and offensive in every diary.  For someone who is apparently one of the most ardent Hillary supporters and fundraisers, WTF is her problem with not following Hillary into Camp Obama?  It doesn't make any sense unless she was always "a women in the office" first and then republican ideology second.  For me, there is no other explanation.  And I personally know female republicans who were for Hillary for the same reason, which is fine for them, but they can stay on their blogs.

If that is true, then why would we ever want her back in here if she is not legitimate democrat?

by KLRinLA 2008-06-09 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Obama supporter's fascination?  It wasn't Obama supporters that put every diary she wrote, regardless of content, on the rec list every day.  It wasn't Obama supporters that put 3 of her diaries AT ONCE on the rec list.

If you read this site, you had Alegre shoved down your throat every day, why is anyone shocked that had consequences?

by libertyleft 2008-06-09 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

And the "Is this Snark" comment that got 50 people put in the penalty box by Jerome still stands.  Which is totally ridiculous.  To have someone troll and get called out for it and then have the site actually penalize those who were offended is totally unacceptable.

Amnesty was promised but hasn't been granted yet, to my knowledge.  

And no, this isn't sour grapes.  I can rec and rate.  I just find the actions of the Mods here, in this particular case, reprehensible.

She doesn't even participate here anymore and there are still reasonable contributors being punished because of her actions.  She doesn't deserve my respect nor does anyone who blindly protected and promoted her views over the voices of others.  She was/is a paid shill, IMO.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-09 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

We endured Rovian smear after Rovian smear against a leading Democrat on this site for months from the trolls of the Clinton Smear Machine.  They were spearheaded by soulless hatmongers like alegre, susanhu, Universal, Larry Johnson, linfar, and TexasDarlin.  alegre was just the most vocal after the first sewage clean up by the admins here when susanhu and Universal were shown the door.  They were far worse than alegre, but they got the boot months ago.  

Frankly, I could care less if they vote for Obama, and I certainly don't think that anyone needs to "work" for their support.  F them, they can go sit in the corner and have their little petulent hissy fit for all I care.  The HillIsnt44 hatemongers are a tiny minority of the Clinton support base anyway.

by NJIndependent 2008-06-09 10:40AM | 0 recs
A talented diarist?

What's the going rate these days for diarists who regurgitate fluff from Hillhub and Newsmax?

Prolific does not equal talented.

by 79blondini 2008-06-09 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: A talented diarist?

I'm not talking about negative pieces. Its the positive ones that I admired most. I don't like some of the attacks she's used.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

She is a grown woman.  She knows where to find us.  If she wants to go away and pout for a while then I say we should let her.  

Nothing we say will stop Alegre and her ilk from being angry.  They will either work it out on their own or they won't.  It is a mistake to focus too much attention on these people.  They are a small minority of Democrats and frankly they aren't going to be much help in beating McCain in November.

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-09 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Do you forget the stand for alegre diary you rec'ed?

by nogo postal 2008-06-09 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Yet more importantly to me, the problem is that these people feel Barack Obama stepped back and let it happen.

This is proposing a standard that has never been in place in any previous nominating fight.  Did other candidates stand up to media criticism of Howard Dean or the scandal coverage of Gennifer Flowers/Bill Clinton in 1992? It just isn't the norm during a nominating campaign.  And the idea that a woman candidate needs protection by a man is rather Victorian.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:22AM | 0 recs
it's also a setback for female candidates...

the belief that women can't compete unless the playing field is tilted in their favor is even more of a setback for female candidates...

by bored now 2008-06-09 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: it's also a setback for female candidates...

I suppose that means you're opposed to Affirmative Action as well?

by slynch 2008-06-09 01:44PM | 0 recs
huh???

by bored now 2008-06-09 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: huh???

This is the same argument that is used against affirmative action--that it should be eliminated because it really sets minorities back by tilting the playing field.  So, I was asking you if your view here is the same as your view on affirmative action.

by slynch 2008-06-09 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: huh???

what are you talking about?  i've made no argument. i don't have a clue what you are trying to say because your comment doesn't reflect anything that i've said, even though it refers back to it.  if you want an answer, perhaps you should explain what "argument that is used against affirmative action."   otherwise, we aren't communicating (i'm assuming that you didn't understand my comment just as i don't understand your reply)...

by bored now 2008-06-09 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: huh???

go back to your original comment.  You said that the belief that women can't compete unless the field is tilted in their favor was a setback for feminism.  I asked if that was also therefore your view of Affirmative Action.

by slynch 2008-06-09 06:44PM | 0 recs
i see...

you didn't understand what i wrote.  i never wrote "i believe."  i was stating a fact.  i've already talked to female candidates who have mentioned this as feedback in their fundraising efforts.  i'm sorry you misunderstood.  obviously, i don't understand your question since it was based on a false premise.  if you'd like to restate it, explicitly stating your premise (so i can understand what it is you're trying to ask), feel free...

by bored now 2008-06-10 04:28AM | 0 recs
Well

I wholeheartedly support Affirmative Action based on class/income level.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

I think that should be a component of it as well.

by slynch 2008-06-09 03:52PM | 0 recs
I posted this already but then why was Hillary not

only required to respond to the Obama muslim smear, but when she did so wonderfully, she was STILL attacked for it, and continues to be to this day in this very diary by people quoting the words "as far as I know"?

Man, some Obama supporters, including many in this thread, are BEYOND hypocrites.  Its like a double standard on steroids.  He is not obligated to defend her, but she is obligated to defend him, and when she sticks her neck out for him, its ok for him and his people to CUT IT OFF.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I posted this already but then why was Hillary

Good lord that was dramatic.

Nobody said she had to stick her neck out for him.  But she was asked a "yes or no" question, and her answer was somewhere in between.

by Jess81 2008-06-09 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I posted this already but then why was Hillary

They call that kind of response "clintonian" for a reason.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-09 11:16AM | 0 recs
You forget, she had already answered it 3 times

by suzieg 2008-06-09 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I posted this already

Thank you Mr. Jefferson. I swear dealing with Obama supportes on the double standard is like talking to the deaf, dumb and blind.

by linfar 2008-06-09 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I posted this already

Clinton was answering a question on 60 minutes. You don't have a comparable example for Obama -- one where he was answering a press question.

But, really, who cares? We have a nominee.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 11:43AM | 0 recs
What do you plan to do

should Obama select Clinton as his V.P.?  You obviously despise the woman.  Will you continue to support Obama?

I am really curious about this.  So many Obama supporters claim to really 'hate' Hillary Clinton.  How will that all play out if Obama decides she'd make a good V.P.?

Conversely - to those Clinton supporters who feel animus towards Obama - do you support him with Hillary on the ticket?  How does all that play out?

Me - I'm unhappy with just about everything this primary brought to light.  Sexism, ageism, racism - it was ugly across the board.  I initially supported Obama's entry into the race (Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama).  My support shifted to Clinton over time - but I will vote for Obama over McCain.  Those of you seriously thinking that McCain favors women's rights should perhaps read this Daily Mail article on McCain's treatment of his first wife.  To simply say it is shocking misses the boat.

But I re-ask my initial question, Politicsmatters: Will you continue to support Obama with Clinton as his V.P.?  Or will your obvious and vocal loathing for the woman prevent your seeing the forest for the trees?

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-09 06:31PM | 0 recs
Speaking of hypocrisy

If you don't like Hillary getting called out for her slip up on "so far as I know," then you don't get to be offended about Obama's "likable enough."

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

As a lifelong Democrat, I can say that I will not vote for Obama.

He, and you all, will have to win without me.

Like it or not, there are millions more just like me.  

You can choose to ignore us or not listen or make any of a hundred other disrespectful comments but we are lost to Obama.

Those are facts.  See you in 2012.

by wblynch 2008-06-09 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

This hurts.

I am trying to listen. I am am trying not to ignore you. I am not trying to be disrespecful.

Where do you get those impressions?

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Not you, Falsehood, personally...  I mean you all, Obama and his supporters.

The rude attack minions of the Obama campaign.

We know Obama's game; unleash the hounds and remain above the fray, claiming non-responsibility for the actions of his adoring fans.

How many thousand times did I hear, "It's not Obama, it's his supporters.  He can't control them." ?

To me they are one in the same.

by wblynch 2008-06-09 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Cool. More phony "lifelong" Democrats.

by Reeves 2008-06-09 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Dude, I have been voting Democratic religiously since 1970, and for Democratic presidential candidates every time since 1972.

That may well be longer than you have been alive.

It is quite audacious of you to believe you are in the position to decide who is and who is not a real or phony Democrat.

by wblynch 2008-06-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
audacious?

You're the one who thinks they are talking for "millions more just like me.". Maybe you're a 'real'  Democrat but you are really making yourself look bad.

You are loving your bitterness and hate more then your country. That's very sad.

by JoeCoaster 2008-06-09 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Your vote is your own.  I respect that, and none of the following is an attempt to denigrate your freedom to choose how to vote, if at all.  Please remember that.

You've got a lot of nerve.  Every fucking slight, every insult, every moment of raw anger or annoyance you've felt, how dare you think that this has been a one-way street.

You guys are allowed to get indignant and angry and bitter at how we've acted?  I've been told I'm too naive or stupid to know how to vote or whom to support in my own best interest.

We've all fallen short this time, friend.  You Clinton supporters do not have some magical license to guilt us, slander us, or pretend that all the slings and arrows came from our side.

I honestly respect Clinton supporters.  You are perfectly free to value some things differently than I do.  I don't think less of you for your choice.

I just can't understand why the losers think the winners had a lock on shithead behaviour.  I could very easily apply the same logic to Senator Clinton.  I could dislike her for her supporters.  I won't do that.  Why not?  Two reasons:

1)  It's logically dishonest.  Neither candidate can control their supporters.  They can reign in the most prominent ones that they personally know or have employed (Clinton dealing with Billy Shaheen or Obama dealing with Samantha Power).

2)  It's childish.  If you've got a problem with Senator Obama that's fine.  However, if you're basing your vote on how some people on the internet behaved, you truly do not get how us under-30's deal with it.  It's not real in the same way face to face contact is.  People do not behave in the same way.

Every insult you and your camp has suffered, mine has suffered an equivalent one.  I'm not going to tell you that your rage is false or manufactured.

Do me the same favor.  I'm treating you like an adult.  Do the same.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-09 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

So I guess you think George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, and Gary Hart were treated fairly all around?

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:15AM | 0 recs
Here's another George W. Bush comparison.

The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth slammed Kerry. Bush did not.  Bush was called on it, and he said he thought Kerry really was a war hero, and that the Swift Boat Vets were wrong.  He made a point of making sure people knew that neither he nor his party funded the 527 group, and therefore had nothing to do with it and couldn't control it.  But the Swift Boat ads kept running, Bush won partially as a result, and then Bush just so happened to offer high level positions to all the Swift Boater Vets, including Mr. Fox.

I can assure you, that's what's going to happen with Barack Obama.  All those people who slammed Hillary "without his consent", like Samantha Power, will be members of his staff if he's elected POTUS.

That is one comparison to George W. Bush that I find totally appropriate.  Obama uses his surrogates to destroy his opponents, and distances himself from it in the process.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 09:46AM | 0 recs
And might I add that this is another good time to

compare and contrast the actions of Keith Olbermann as it relates to Clinton's surrogates and her responsibility for them, vs. Obama's surrogates and his NON-responsibility for them.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's another George W. Bush comparison.

Good example. Samantha Power was ousted right after making her statement. Thanks for pointing out how Obama holds his people accountable, and thus is responsible.

by Reeves 2008-06-09 09:59AM | 0 recs
The issue wasn't whether she was fired or whether

it took a day or a week.  I know that one of Olbermann's propaganda spittle rants was that Clinton was so much worse than Obama, because it took her a few days longer to fire Ferraro, but none of that is my point.

My point looks to the future.  I bet Samantha Power will have a role in the Obama administration.

We'll have to wait and see.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-09 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The issue wasn't whether she was fired or whet

You know, I bet she will too.  And she should.  She's one of the best foreign policy minds in the country, and one of the world's foremost experts on genocide.  I'd hope that any Democratic president would find a role for her in his or her White House.

That isn't comparable to the Swiftboaters, though.  Power made one statement of opinion, for which she immediately apologized; the Swiftboaters made multiple statements, and a TV special, and a book, claiming that theirs was a statement of fact, and were unapologetic in their smearing of Sen. Kerry.  Samantha Power and the Swiftboaters aren't even on the same planet in terms of offensiveness.

by mistersite 2008-06-09 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The issue wasn't whether she was

Power, off the record: "she's a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything."
Ferraro, on the record: "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Clinton stooped to attacking Obama's pastor, his patriotism, and his ivy-league education. Obama won a whole lot of very white states, like Oregon, Montana, Iowa, and Vermont. I maintain that the former statement is unfortunate, but not wholly inaccurate. The latter statement is absurd and falsely places credit for Obama's success solely with his skin color.

by X Stryker 2008-06-09 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The issue wasn't whether she was

Don't forget Utah.

I am one of like 15 African Americans in this state that aren't pro or college athletes.

by Darknesse 2008-06-09 12:47PM | 0 recs
Go to No Quarter and Hillaryis44

Is Hillary one in the same with her supporters? Two can play that simpleton game.

by 79blondini 2008-06-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

You'll forgive us, then, if we associate Senator Clinton with the hatred spewed at No Quarter, Hillaryis44.org, and the like. Right?

by ragekage 2008-06-09 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

How many thousand times did I hear, "It's not Obama, it's his supporters.  He can't control them." ?

To me they are one in the same.

Really?  Then how exactly do you propose he should have controlled them?  What would you have had him do exactly?

by mistersite 2008-06-09 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Maybe Obama is controlling all these people with the Imperius curse. He must be stopped.

by mikeinsf 2008-06-09 11:04AM | 0 recs
That was very funny

First time I've smiled since reading this thread.

And very true, by the way.  Neither candidate can control what all their supporters say - and that's across the board.  I think some people's personal bigotries and hatreds came out in this campaign.  Their candidate came to reflect more of themselves than the other way around.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-09 06:40PM | 0 recs
Your thought process

is the same thought process that supports racist and sexist behavior and ideas.

You are generalizing about an entire group, and a candidate, based upon the behavior of a few individuals.

This, as I see it, is not without irony.

by Black Anus 2008-06-09 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?
Well, I replaced you by driving my mother and
Father over to register to vote for the first time in the last decade or so, so I have a 1 whiny bitch cushion.
by Darknesse 2008-06-09 10:18AM | 0 recs
that's ok, we will win without you...

look, you are not the first democrat to resist change in the party or the party leadership.  as your interest in democrats, democratic values and a democrat in the white house recedes, multitudes will take your place.  reform and renewal, as it were.  the party will get stronger, and the grassroots will be more powerful.  this is a glorious time to be a democrat.  but, yes, the defenders of the status quo will be difficult to bring along...

by bored now 2008-06-09 09:38AM | 0 recs
millions more (delusions of grandeur)

See you in 2012? Not if we see you first.  

by JoeCoaster 2008-06-09 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Ha ha ha.

"See you in 2012" when you can rail and complain as Barack Obama runs for re-election.

See the polls today, wblynch? Real Democrats, including Hillary, are already uniting. Have fun on the outside.

by JoeW 2008-06-09 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Their are also 300 million people in the U.S.A., of which roughly 10% participated in the Dem. primaries. Your numbers are very small compared to the number of new voters Obama can tap into.

by venician 2008-06-09 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

That is too bad.

But happily polling shows you are a very small group.  Obama has consolidated the Democratic vote very well.

by fladem 2008-06-09 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I'm indifferent to this general argument, but polling doesn't agree with you.  Currently, 22% of Hillary supporters say they will stay home and 17% say they will vote for McCain.  That is not good news for Obama.

by slynch 2008-06-09 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Less then a week after Clinton concedes at Obama gains support of 81% of Dems, Months after McCain effectively secures the R nom, and he is sitting at 83% of the R vote.

In each election there is roughly 15% crossover votes, 5 months to go and we have hit the floor with 19%? Yeah, the Dem party is alright right now.


Percentage of John McCain supporters in March 2000 who said they would not vote for George W. Bush: 51

Percentage who still said this in October 2000 : 39

(Harpers Index)

This should be distributed far and wide when get concerned about the Clinton supporter numbers

by notedgeways 2008-06-09 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

not sure where your numbers came from, but these numbers are from CNN today.

by slynch 2008-06-09 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Numbers are from Rasmussen

by notedgeways 2008-06-09 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I'd add to that that this is going to be a very close race.  Currently, Obama and McCain are statistically tied in the polls, and so every Hillary voter is going to matter.  It's not a smart move for folks around here to continually say this "We'll win without you" phrase.  It won't happen.

by slynch 2008-06-09 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

When many of Hillary's supporters are Republicans in both name and spirit (either Republicans seeking to cause trouble or actual moderates who see Obama as too liberal), I don't find those numbers shocking at all.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I'm sorry but I seriously doubt there are millions like you.  And our country will lose if you're right about that.  My hope is this level of bitterness is limited to those who participated in the campaigns and actively fought this out on the internet, etc.  Of the campaign staffs, I see those people being brought in by Obama already.  For those here and elsewhere in the blogosphere who aren't into Obama, sorry.  I'm guessing your numbers are in the hundreds, not millions.  And we're marching on, with or without you.  If McCain is elected, that'll be your fault and you'll have to live with that.  I'm putting my energy into something positive.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-09 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Enjoy your coat hangers and we'll presumably see you in 2016, not 2012.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

while I think the party did move away from her

that type of statement you might wish to revise.  1/2 of the party voted for her.

Did she stand up against the Muslim rumors in the same way?

media matters paints a different story about that infamous soundbite:
Lots of eager, tsk-tsking pundits and reporters agreed. They said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying

watch the clip - watch her expression and her tone of voice.  it is the WTF moment - why are you asking me this again?

http://mediamatters.org/columns/20080311 0002
her full response:


CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-09 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I meant that only in the sense of the Dean election, who was not who she wanted. The 50 state strategy is much more in turn with Obama than Clinton, as far as I read the rhetoric.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re:
and as Paul Krugman recently pointed out the pundits didn't even hear her say "Of course not."   They had their own despicable agenda.  How much are these smart people paid anyway?
 
by moevaughn 2008-06-09 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

so what else is new?

Its super ironic I suppose. I mean months ago Hillary supporters were in outrage about this and Obama supporters dissmissed it as, "looks kids dont talk to the crazies." and now after she has lost everyone wants to care and blow kisses and have group hugs.

the time to come to our help is over.

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-09 09:24AM | 0 recs
Obama is just the symbol
for the half of the party that didn't say anything and oftentimes parroted sexist opining and remarks.  Its not necessarily what HE did, but what his campaign and supporters did or didn't do.  You admit as much in your diary, in a round about way.


Same goes for 'lies' about HRC that Obama told.  It was never really him, but his campaign and surrogates.  Its a pretty sore spot for some.  It impressed the hell out of me, in a cynical way, but I more than understand some, like Alegre's reservations about jumping on board.  There is, indeed work to be done.  As for ideas... still thinking, we have a bit and time is probably the best cure anyway.
by linc 2008-06-09 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is just the symbol

That's probably right, but I know McCain will be ripping at the scabs as best he can.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is just the symbol

How'd you get so smart, linc? Not the first time I hae asked that, is it?

by linfar 2008-06-09 10:24AM | 0 recs
Ha!

Too kind- smart ass might be the better description ;)  How are you anyway?

by linc 2008-06-09 02:48PM | 0 recs
I am the smart ass

not you- btw.

by linc 2008-06-09 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I don't know how anyone can watch that video and then claim there was no sexism against Clinton.  If there was a plethora of signs and bumper stickers that denigrated Obama like that people would be coming unglued.  Somehow it's ok or even funny when it is against Clinton.  

That is where I call BS.  Did Obama actively participate in most of it?  No.  Did he benefit from it?  I believe he did.  And that is why I think you didn't see any swift or sharp rebuttals from his campaign about the issue like you did about race.

by JustJennifer 2008-06-09 09:26AM | 0 recs
Same reason we didn't see rebuttals re:

race from the Clinton campaign?

What's your point?

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-09 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Same reason we didn't see rebuttals re:

If Clinton didn't speak up and defend Obama when Bush made his inappropriate comments in Israel, would everyone here support her decision not to speak up since Obama can defend himself?

by JustJennifer 2008-06-09 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Same reason we didn't see rebuttals re:

I think both campaigns were sensitive to the racism/sexism issues and pretty much left it to each other how they wanted to deal with it. If Hillary had gone public and called out someone everytime she thought a racist frame was being thrown at Obama, the Obama camp probably would have freaked out that she was constantly calling attention to race. Same is true of Clinton and the sexism issue.

I think it goes deeper than just "a candidate should be able to defend him/herself." On the issues of racism and sexism for these candidates, they needed the freedom to plan their defenses as they saw fit. And as a black man and a white woman, I'm quite certain they are familiar with the fact that you don't get to their positions without sucking up a lot of BS without comment.

Having said that, I do think it's important for the ordinary person to call out the BS. We should be able to have a separate conversation about racist and sexist treatment of these candidates without fussing about whether the conversation is an advantage or disadvantage to the individual candidate. I think it is to the advantage of our society in general to discuss these matters openly - I just don't think candidates are in the best position to have that full, complicated conversation.

by Mobar 2008-06-09 10:20AM | 0 recs
Did we see rebuttals from Clinton OR Obama

to the ageist jokes about Gravel?

by benmasel 2008-06-09 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

ayup!

by linfar 2008-06-09 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I know that sexism ran rampant in the campaign.  I was watching MSNBC when the whole "Iron My Shirt" debacle happened...I actually cried and thought very hard about switching my affiliation to Clinton because I so admired the way she handled the situation.  So yes, there was sexism and I'm sure Obama did benefit from it to an extent.  

However, there was also racism and I am sure that Clinton benefitted from that as well.  Just two nights ago I was with a group of people that I didn't really know and somehow politics came up and one young woman (who claimed to be a Hillary supporter, but I really doubt that based on some of her other comments) actually said "I could never vote for Obama because I know he is a Muslim and anyone who says he isn't is lying."  I was stunned...all I could do was laugh and ask if she was serious (she said she was).

So the point of all of that is...I know there was sexism and I am sure that Obama benefitted from it.  But, there was also racism and I know that Clinton benefitted from it even though I firmly believe that she did not encourage it.

by mnl1012 2008-06-09 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Just another reminder: the Iron My Shirt guys were two employees of a Boston-area radio shock jock show.  When one of the guys said his name was Hugh Jass, that should have given it away.  This meme is getting to be on par with fingergate.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Oh yeah, I realize that those guys had nothing whatsoever to do with the Obama campaign.  I thought about supporting her after that because I loved the way she handled it...not because I thought Obama's campaign had anything to do with it.

by mnl1012 2008-06-09 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Yeah, I realized that as I reread your post.  Well, at least it was a good chance to remind others.  I like Hillary quite a bit and I think she would be a good VP.  I am not convinced she would be a good VP CANDIDATE, but I could be proven wrong.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

That is where I call BS.  Did Obama actively participate in most of it?  No.  Did he benefit from it?  I believe he did.  And that is why I think you didn't see any swift or sharp rebuttals from his campaign about the issue like you did about race.

And Clinton benefitted from the racism against Obama - so?

by BrighidG 2008-06-09 12:30PM | 0 recs
Write Off Alegre

Seriously, if she wants to believe the nonsense that Hillary was "robbed" of the nomination after her people essentially set up the primary and caucuses to her liking, and after she tried to discount the votes of people in Iowa, Nevada, and other caucus states after speaking extensively about the importance of those caucus states, and if she wants to blame the exclusion of the full delegations from MI and FL after Hillary and her campaign vociferously endorsed the embargo against those states until it was in her interest to have them counted and if she wants to blame sexism when in fact Hillary and her campaign never injected gender into the campaign until she was behind . . .

We don't need every single Hillary supporter to win the GE. Those who are rational and genuinely concerned about the future of the nation will support Obama, even if they do so somewhat reluctantly.

Alegre isn't worth fretting about, nor is she worth trying to persuade.

by Davidsfr 2008-06-09 09:27AM | 0 recs
way to be

cocksure.

by linc 2008-06-09 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: way to be

There is a degree of denialism that runs through the statements of some supporters, like a line quoted in this diary:

At this point BO might (might) get my vote in November if he ends up being our nominee.

IF??????????

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: way to be

Of course, I appreciate the door open to voting for Obama.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:34AM | 0 recs
its not a door for me

I have always said that I will support the nominee.  just a btw, fyi.

by linc 2008-06-09 09:49AM | 0 recs
Remember Perot's Statement in the 92 Debates

"if you hate people, I don't want your vote."

Alegre's posts were hateful. Nuff said.

by Davidsfr 2008-06-09 09:34AM | 0 recs
They were no such thing

and if at all, very slight compared to the hate coming from your side.

by linc 2008-06-09 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: They were no such thing

The hate was from both sides - and if you think that isn't true, check out hillaryis44 and the racist Larry Johnson's site sometime.  They're still busy hating.

There's a lot of healing to be done, but let's not pretend that one candidate or the other's supporters were angels in this.  There are people on both sides who should probably be disowned.

by mistersite 2008-06-09 09:57AM | 0 recs
Well no shit

but this diary and the comment I replied to were specific about Alegre.  So was my comment, hence the reference to Alegre.

by linc 2008-06-09 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Well no shit

I think comparing the one diarist Alegre to all Obama supporters is a problematic comparison.  Of course one diarist, even one as prolific as Alegre, isn't going to be able to put out as much hate as even a (small) minority of Obama's supporters.  However, she is/was part of a (small) minority of Clinton supporters who let their support of Clinton become hatred for Obama.  Let's not pretend that they don't exist.  There has been hate from both sides; let's ask those who hate to answer for it, not other supporters of the same candidate.

by mistersite 2008-06-09 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: way to be

One could say realistic, as well.

It was a rough campaign.  On both sides.  You can sit around and cry about it if you like.  If you're determined to, there's nothing we can say to remind you that your candidate not only participated in this rough campaign with gusto, but was most certainly the first to go negative.

Sit around and cry about the poor widdle candidate who got mistweeted.  We'll be busy making sure you have the option to cry that, instead of a 7-2 Supreme Court for the next twenty years.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-09 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: way to be

With which campaign are these associated?

"Kitchen sink strategy"

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I'm quite comfortable in the kitchen."

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:42AM | 0 recs
yuck

what a childish comment.

by linc 2008-06-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: way to be

Sexist.

by kasjogren 2008-06-09 10:33AM | 0 recs
&lt;Gasp&gt;

"cocksure"

I call sexism!

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-09 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

It was a competitive primary.  Crappy things were said and done on all sides.  It's unfortunate, but a fact and this is where we are now.  As Americans, as Democrats, we can decide what we do next.  Do we nurse grudges or look to the future?  Do we forgive, but remember to learn from our mistakes?  Do we continue infighting or pivot to address the serious issues that face us?  

I made my choice and I'm moving on.  I hope others can wrestle their consciences to the same place, but I only have control over my own actions, not theirs.  

by whognu 2008-06-09 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

This whole emphasis on sexism overlooks the most important reasons why Obama is the nominee. We all know the litany regarding the bad campaign moves of the Clinton side. For me, the Iraq vote was key.

And also Obama just proved to be an amazing candidate.

As Bob Kerry said, "No doubt she's feeling the disappointment that all of us who have lost races feel...     She shouldn't be too hard on herself. If Barack Obama had been born 10 years earlier and had been a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 1992, neither I nor Bill Clinton would have defeated him."

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:40AM | 0 recs
Supporters on both sides are wearing blinders

It is amazing to me that Obama supporters can say that there was lots of racism but no sexism.  It is also amazing that Clinton supporters can say that there was lots of sexism but no racism.  You can only see one side because you are so entrenched in your candidate.

Both sides played the 'ism' game.  There were clearly moments in the campaign when Clinton surrogates, the media, and real racists pushed some racist memes.  It is also true that Obama surrogates, the media, and some real sexists pushed some sexist memes.

Please go back objectively and look at the primary season.  It was ugly.  No one is innocent.

by CAchemist 2008-06-09 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Supporters on both sides are wearing blinders

Sure there was sexism. How could there be not? This is a sexist society. But I didn't see it from the Obama campaign - and it was a very minor part of how things turned out in the end.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Supporters on both sides are wearing blinders

No but he played the racism card beautifully at a couple points in the campaign.  The clinton campaign definitely said some very racist things at points in the campaign which opened them up to some non-racist things being spun into racism.  

The Bill Clinton "fairy tale" moment is the perfect example.  That wasn't racist but with just the right spin it caught hold.

So yes Obama still played the  'ism' game.

by CAchemist 2008-06-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Supporters on both sides are wearing blinders

I never once saw him or his campaign push that idea. They didn't stop it, but they didn't egg it on.

I was watching very closely; I never saw anything.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:28AM | 0 recs
by canadian gal 2008-06-09 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Supporters on both sides are wearing blinders

D'oh. You caught me in a lie.

I knew about the SC thing, and I meant to be talking about the national campaign, like an Axelrod memo or some such. However, my intention didn't match my words, and you are completely correct.

However, that memo wasn't part of the national strategy (not from Pluffe), and Obama wasn't happy with it:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 108/The_Obama_race_memo.html

That was the state group/person acting independently, though the entire campaign is still culpable.

And thus, I eat my words....

"MMM, tasty..."

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 02:02PM | 0 recs
Okay, Obama called a woman &quot;sweetie&quot;

and to some that is sexist or misogynist or whatever. Got anything else that you can attribute to Obama or his campaign? Is this all about the "sweetie" comment? Or are you just looking for reasons to hate him because he's not Hillary?

by 79blondini 2008-06-09 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, Obama called a woman &quot;sweetie&quot;

Actually I am a pretty rabid BHO supporter but that doesn't mean I can't objectively look at the campaign.

by CAchemist 2008-06-09 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Supporters on both sides are wearing blinders

I haven't seen Obama supporter say that there was no sexism. Just that there was no sexism from the Obama camp.

Sexism didnt' sink her candidacy. She started with 100 delegate lead and the media touting her as inevitable. Penn and DC consultants the old school politicians rely on sunk her candidacy. The DLC sunk her candidacy. Ultimately, for going along with those folks, she sunk her candidacy.

by LiberalDebunker 2008-06-09 10:02AM | 0 recs
Alegre's a grown woman.

If she needs to be coddled into voting for the nominee of the party she claims to belong to, perhaps she should reconsider her motives in private. This site is about getting our nom into the White House this November, and we will readily do it without sulkers and trolls.

by Firewall 2008-06-09 09:47AM | 0 recs
That's cool

Take your time or whatever.

If you don't come back, that's fine too.

Looking back is a waste of time, according to Hillary. That's what she said in her last speech. It was quite moving. But if you chose not to be moved, that's your call.

by missliberties 2008-06-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

If you help McCain win for selfish reasons, you're no friend of democrats and no friend of america

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-06-09 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Humm.

"We'll end up slaves. We'll be made slaves just like they was once slaves," he said. Telvor, a white Democrat who is supporting Hillary Clinton in West Virginia's primary, said he planned to vote for Republican John McCain in November if Obama wins the nomination. "At least he's an American," he added...

I don't seem to recall Senator Clinton ever rejecting statements like this. Or am I forgetting it?

Honestly, though, I don't care- if either candidate had lowered themselves into responding to such filth, it would've only served to encourage people to do it more. Recognizing it gives it a face and something to hook onto. So, I don't hold it against Senator Clinton that she didn't remark on supporters of hers like this one, until I hear deadenders whine about Senator Obama ignoring sexism.

It was a contentious primary. Feelings were hurt. Everyone got slammed by the media- see?

As for Alegre, ** her. I don't want her duplictious and conniving self around here ever again. Sorry. There's LOTS of Clinton supporters here I didn't get along with, that I exchanged harsh words with, and traded invective back and forth.

Bobswern? Crap, he and I were at each other's throat. Canadian Gal? You better believe it. Slynch, Rummarhazzit, Grlpatriot, etc, the list goes on and on. But when I challenged something they said/Senator Clinton did/etc, they stood up for themselves and defended their point. I may have disagreed with them, but they never slandered Senator Obama, or like ad hominem attacks and rhetoric take the place of real discourse.

Alegre? Not so much. She will never be taken seriously again, and for good reason. She's yesterdays news. Forget it.

by ragekage 2008-06-09 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

She said she would support Obama if he were to win long after all the things she's citing occurred.

I thought she was lying but kept it to myself.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.

by Jess81 2008-06-09 10:18AM | 0 recs
Where'd ya get the chart?

My only comment in this thread:

o  Alegre imho went overboard early and often.  Senator Clinton personally recognized her on a concall and thanked her for her work.  Those two pieces of information together are the single artifact of hard evidence that lead me to believe that the hits coming from that camp were condoned if not endorsed by the candidate.  Even this I leave open to doubt, perhaps Sen. Clinton was being nice and had no specific knowledge of what Alegre was writing.

o  I have been on MyBO lists since the beginning of the year.  Both from the candidate and the campaign there have been numerous directives that volunteers not engage in negative personal attacks.  This has been repeated by those of us on the lists many many times.

All this is historical at this point and makes no difference going forward, except inasmuch as it addresses whether the person chosen as nominee actually endorses "below the belt" politics.  

I would drop Sen. Obama like a hot brick if I felt I have been fooled into supporting someone who endorsed these sorts of attacks - his refusal to do so is a foundational reason for believing his stance on everything else.  There has not been a single instance of anything from the candidate, campaign or even from the several dozen hard-core supporters that I have gotten to know extremely well that indicates any support for the kinds of attacks that are widely attributed to him by the anti-Obama folks.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-06-09 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Where'd ya get the chart?

What he said.

Also, Poblano made the chart- Fivethirtyeight.com

by ragekage 2008-06-09 10:44AM | 0 recs
PS - if you want to give someone love and

comfort, give it to linfar, grlpatriot or other heartfelt supporters who are known good folks.

-thanks

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-06-09 10:47AM | 0 recs
Thanks Ragekage

You saved me a lot of typing and I love the chart.  I'm in absolute agreement with you on this.

by mikeinsf 2008-06-09 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Some of your diary just doesn't make sense to me:


The man who shouted "Iron my Shirt," the creator of the Hillary nutcracker, and all of the other haters triumphed. Yet more importantly to me, the problem is that these people feel Barack Obama stepped back and let it happen.

The two who shouted "Iron my shirt" were staffers at a radio station that was staging a prank. And you draw the conclusion that Sen. Obama "let it happen"?  What in the world could or should he have done - come to the rescue of Sen. Clinton?  Yeesh.  IMO, Sen. Clinton handled that incident quite well and needed no help at all.  

The video contained exactly one example of Sen. Obama making a sexist statement (early in the clip), and arguably that was a misstatement, similar to the RFK whoops by Clinton. He was criticized for the remark -- rightly so.  I'm inclined to give both candidates lots of slack in their campaign utterances: it's a long, long slog and they're human.

Sen. Obama has spoken out against sexism (and racism) many times during the campaign, as has Sen. Clinton.  Sure, sexism exists and is on display daily in the MSM. No doubt some of the troglodytes responsible for the displays in the rest of the video are Obama supporters. But to blame Sen. Obama for "letting this happen" is ludicrous. Sexism existed before the campaign and persists afterwards, regardless of Sen. Obama and any amount of magic pixie koolaid.  

by Twin Planets 2008-06-09 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

No, I think Obama acted appropriately.

However, others don't share that opinion, and I'm not sure how to reach out to them.

I have supported Obama since May 2007, and I don't blame him for what happened; regardless, he is being blamed.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

If people are willing to blame someone for something he has nothing to do with, they are already irrational and cannot be "reached".

by mikeinsf 2008-06-09 08:02PM | 0 recs
As a former, hardcore Clinton supporter...

...how dare anyone put their egos ahead of the common good?!

There's too much at stake for gratuitous b.s. this year...I'm sorry, it's just the way it is.

I really am a fan of Alegre's, but it's time for her and all other supporters to move forward for the good of us all!

The same holds true for all this Hillary-hate that I see still being posted on places like DKos.

To that, I say: "ENOUGH!" Get over it!

by bobswern 2008-06-09 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: As a former, hardcore Clinton supporter...

"There's too much at stake for gratuitous b.s. this year...I'm sorry, it's just the way it is."

Mojo for another Democrat showing strength and resolve!

Thanks Bob!

seriously, I love the line, please reuse or add it in as an update to your diary.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: As a former, hardcore Clinton supporter...

Thanks Bob.  You are a Democrat and a scholar.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-09 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: As a former, hardcore Clinton supporter...

Seriously, like I said, Bob and I have been at each other's throats in the past, but now he's fighting for Senator Obama and the Democratic party.

But the thing is, he's not forgetting why he supported Senator Clinton (indeed, he's hasn't stopped supporting Senator Clinton at all, which is how it should be), and furthermore, he's working to make things the way he thinks they should be instead of writing GBCW diaries and stomping his feet and vowing to vote for McCain.

by ragekage 2008-06-09 10:42AM | 0 recs
Thanks for this Falsehood

"I didn't think I really got it until today. Until today, I thought Clinton supporters were overreacting to fair attacks and criticisms. Instead, they were under-reacting to the unfair, horrible attacks. This video is horrible."

by twinmom 2008-06-09 10:03AM | 0 recs
Bottom line

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I'm quite comfortable in the kitchen."

Her own words.  On the whole, the democratic party has the bulk of the most tolerant people in the country.  People who go out of their way to be tolerant to as many things as possible.  People who reject racism, sexism, anti-gay statements.

That isn't to say the party is perfect, but less sexist than the country as a whole is a simple fact.

If her campaign lost because of sexism in the Democratic primary, (that isn't why she lost, but pretend) she would have no chance at all in the general as the general population is far more sexist than we are.

by libertyleft 2008-06-09 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

It really cuts both ways here. Obama triumphed over racial AND religious discrimination (the muslim rumors, and he's not even a muslim!) and had he not there'd be a whole other can of worms to open. Hillary did not run against a conventional opponent.

The rift between establishment feminism and women of color is widening rapidly and perhaps irrevocably - and it was never exactly small to begin with. I'm a white woman but I'm not blind and I see it happening. All you have to do is visit any forum for black women and you'll see it too. If we can't accept that bad things happened on both sides of the border and MOVE ON TOGETHER we may NEVER be together. Not in 5 months. Not ever. This is a crucial moment in the history of feminism, and it is being botched.

by terra 2008-06-09 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

That rift grows a little wider each time someone talks about how Obama needs to win women, how women are with Clinton, etc, as it completely neglects women of color, rendering them invisible and irrelevant and making it seem for all the world as if the only women women enough to be recognized as women are white women. Specifically, older white women voting for Hillary Clinton. So it also neglects younger women who have readily supported Obama. In general, it's just a toxic meme.

by Firewall 2008-06-09 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Exactly.

Barack Obama actually won self-described feminists.  Which should not be a surprise to anyone.

He won women under 65, and absolutely wiped out Clinton among women under 40.

Before the word "feminism" is drawn further through the muck, I'm going to have to redouble my visibility as a white woman who supports Obama.

by Jess81 2008-06-09 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Not all older white women supported Hillary.  I did not.  I supported JRE then Obama.  I never was on the Clinton bandwagon.  I would never have voted for a candidate just because they were a woman or because they were caucasian.  I voted for the candidate that was the most progressive and who I felt to the best for the democratic party as a whole.  To me those candidates were and are JRE, and Obama.  I always felt that the Clintons had their time, and now it is time for someone else to have their time.

by Spanky 2008-06-09 10:38AM | 0 recs
I agree completely.

Your post sounds like my autobiography.  Edwards, then Obama, seeking the most progressive candidate, not a return to old time politics.

by DaveG 2008-06-09 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

You know for as long as I've been politically aware, I've had a pet peeve with women who say completely reasonable things, and then follow it up with "but I mean, I'm not a feminist or anything."

You're right - it is being botched, and if this goes down as the year of the angry white woman, "feminism" per se is no longer going to be something that I can unequivocally lay claim to.  I am going to have to qualify it - and doubly so, because I'm a white woman.

by Jess81 2008-06-09 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I don't know about that, but I'll say this:

Immediately after Pennsylvania, she stated unequivocally that if Barack Obama were to win, she would support him.

I did not believe her.  I thought she was saying that only because at that point she thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win the nomination, and wanted Obama supporters on board.  Which we were already.

I was right not to believe her.  This doesn't make me happy - I'd much rather be proven wrong about someone who I think is dishonest than be proven right, but there it is.

by Jess81 2008-06-09 10:15AM | 0 recs
But you admitted, you DIDN'T SEE, so claiming

and clearly, becuase you closed your eyes to the very truth and the fraud of B O

You claim we think he did assisted and you think that is a lie and excuse what he, his staff and supporters did do.

I guess you also closed your eyes to the truth of what he did.....and that he LIED about it, when the few times the media didn't cover for him and said, "you say you didn't make these claims, but I have pages of emails from your campaign manager making those claims".

Closing your eyes to the truth doesn't make it go away, you are left with lies and improper attacks you closed your eyes to.

by thebluenote 2008-06-09 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: But you admitted, you DIDN'T SEE, so claiming

And I'm actually getting over the anger and sadness of what the establishment and b o  has cost our country and how little to know progress will be made, and now moving on to just sheer enjoyment that I will have a care free summer and fall and will have the pleasure of not giving acceptance to his and the DNC's tactics by voting against him.

by thebluenote 2008-06-09 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: But you admitted, you DIDN'T SEE, so claiming

I don't think his staff or he pushed this stuff.

I really don't, and that can be refuted factually. Please reference.

Please show me those pages from his campaign manager.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:29AM | 0 recs
TR'd for calling Obama a fraud.

If I called Hillary a fraud, I'd be TR'd right off this site.  Please get on board electing a Democrat in the Fall, or leave.  We have a nominee.  Choose sides please.

by HardWorkingWhitePerson 2008-06-09 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: TR'd for calling Obama a fraud.

Gotta agree.  That's too low.  Hillary would never say that, and any supporter that does so makes her look bad.  TR'd for being an asshole to Sen.Clinton.

by OVAH 2008-06-09 11:20AM | 0 recs
I don't care why.

The vote would be nice, but not at the expense of tolerating all the intellectual dishonesty and abuse. Alegre should join the rest of her fellow revanchists at Hillaryis44.com. That is where she belongs.

by urban shocker 2008-06-09 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't care why.

Did you read the diary? I explicitly said we shouldn't be doing that; saying people can't be angry about the sexism isn't a good plan in my mind.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't care why.

I never said anybody couldn't "be angry about the sexism." People who smear the Democratic candidate and don't support him belong among their likes, not on a Democratic website. This has nothing to do with censuring anybody for resenting sexism.

by urban shocker 2008-06-09 11:25AM | 0 recs
Alegre is intellectually dishonest.

Her posts were difficult to read through, given the dishonesty and hypocrisy.  And I was an Edwards supporter, not an Obama supporter.

Now that Obama is our candidate, we don't need diarists who are intellectually dishonest.  The best thing for the party would be if she sits this election out and we don't hear from her again.

by DaveG 2008-06-09 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre is intellectually dishonest.

I called her on untrue posts, but that doesn't negate how strong her rallying diaries were.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:54AM | 0 recs
I don't know why

and I don't give a fuck, either.

by rabidnation 2008-06-09 10:34AM | 0 recs
I'd like to move on now please

Can we PLEASE stop talking about what Alegre and Hillary want all the goddamned time? Frankly I could care less - I'm not going to sit and moan and look back and wonder "what if" for the next 4 months - I'm going to work to defeat John McSame and elect Barack Obama as our next president. If Alegre wants to sit on her hands and cry that's fine - but we need to stop wasting time on this and I vote we do so right now.

by HisRoyalHighness 2008-06-09 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd like to move on now please

Give it a week or two. We're all of two days after her concession.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:53AM | 0 recs
What in that video has to do with Obama?

How is he responsible for what Chris Matthews or Bill Maher says?

by jaywillie 2008-06-09 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: What in that video has to do with Obama?

He's not, but his elevation as presumptive nominee represents some "success" of that sort of thing.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 10:52AM | 0 recs
Just like low information racism?

So based on your "logic", Hillary's success in with un-educated white voters that polled that they wouldn't vote for a black person is indicative that she was peddling for the racist vote?

Right?  That's the inference from your "logic".

by Regenman 2008-06-09 11:04AM | 0 recs
Hill4press

a little deadender gossip:

Hill4Press changed his registration to Republican,  so that answers any loyalty questions.

Really,  Alegre went from 300+ comment posts that were considered a "danger zone" for Obama supporters not wanting to be banned or restricted to an unknown website with 10 commenters.

http://hillarysbloggers.soapblox.net/sho wDiary.do;jsessionid=8D23961C3940988F2F3 0325B0EC3279E?diaryId=223

As a person who never had his question answered:
"Alegre, will you support the Democratic nominee in the fall?"

I find it quite refreshing to see her where she always wanted to be, in an echo chamber.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hill4press

Did I mess up?

I checked MYdd search and could not find Hill4press!?!

That was a poster here.  If a name is banned is every trace of them removed?

Anyways, go to the link, its HILLarious!  (sorry hrc, I couldn't resist)

some of the stuff on there is way too funny.

Like they made up some idea where you draw your hand like little kids do and send it to the DNC (you gotta read it)

Can you imagine being Howard Deans secretary and opening this stuff up?

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I think it's important that people not displace their legitimate and well-founded anger with Bill Maher, or Chris Matthews, or some right-wing heckler onto Obama. The anger should be directed where it belongs - at those who said these things.

by fugazi 2008-06-09 10:53AM | 0 recs
This is ludicrous

Of all the whiny, immature silliness.  If Alegre thinks Obama is responsible for sexist attacks or failing to stop sexist attacks on Clinton, she can stew right where she is.

Even if she doesn't think that, she can stew right where she is.

I just don't care.

The express opinion that Obama bears some responsibility here is just idiotic.

by ksh 2008-06-09 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: This is ludicrous

Some think Obama is Muslim, which is also idiotic.

Just because it's wrong doesn't mean that people won't hold that opinion, or that we're absolved of figuring out ways to get as much support as we can for Obama.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 05:08PM | 0 recs
I don't disagree

Everyone should get on board, but the amount of energy courting a holdout who possesses irrational beliefs might be better spent phone banking, registering voters, volunteering.

by ksh 2008-06-10 07:59PM | 0 recs
Let her sulk

We can all acknowledge that sexism and racism have occurred in this primary.  There's an Obama-as-Curious-George T-shirt for every Hillary nutcracker, but the "my 'ism' is worse than your 'ism'" is silly and pointless.

As for alegre, her sitting back and waiting for the "pretty please" diaries begging her back is almost as annoying as actually having to read her words. Even if she's reachable, do we really need to read some cloying new diary about her conversion and that "Obama is pure polished gold" too?  Please. I vomited the first time.

Regardless, I'd rather use my energy convincing the plenty more rational people who might be sitting on the fence. Just yesterday I turned two thinking people around and I think my energy was much more well-spent. They understand at heart the difference between a  Democratic administration and a Republican one, and just needed some reassurances about their reservations regarding Obama.  They're not starstruck groupies projecting  themselves onto a single celebrity politician, they're normal people from outside blogland who get what's at stake.

Alegre? If you want to spend your valuable time begging her to come home, then go waste that time.  I say let her sulk.

by mikeinsf 2008-06-09 11:29AM | 0 recs
The only thing I have to say is

this. Isn't calling a fellow blogger out in the title a big No No?

by kevin22262 2008-06-09 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: The only thing I have to say is

She seems to have left this site, so I guess you dont have to be too concerned.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-09 11:36AM | 0 recs
Falsehood was calling her out in support

pretty sure thats allowed...

by chrisblask 2008-06-09 11:36AM | 0 recs
Technically not calling out

Calling out is challenging them or smacking them around, as in:

"maxomai, what happened to those hamsters you bought?!?"

or

"maxomai is pig old pile of dog crap."

As opposed to:

"In praise of maxomai, whom I shall henceforth call 'Lord.'"

So no, this isn't calling out.

by maxomai 2008-06-09 11:43AM | 0 recs
well...

what did happen to those hamsters? Huh? Come on... fess up!

and... because of your lack of response about said hamsters, I can NOT call you LORD?  OK?

 :)

by kevin22262 2008-06-09 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The only thing I have to say is

This is simply a response to the Stand up and applaud her..

as for a no no...
It was made clear that MyDD allowed darn near everything except responses to alegre's "Is this snark"

by nogo postal 2008-06-09 03:26PM | 0 recs
PS: if you want to give someone love and

comfort, give it to linfar, grlpatriot or other heartfelt supporters who are known good folks.

In fact, I call for a Mojo Pile of Support for linfar (Phantom Mojo is accepted here).

-thanks

-chris

Reposted or visibility...

by chrisblask 2008-06-09 11:35AM | 0 recs
&quot;for&quot; visibility, (bloody typos)...

by chrisblask 2008-06-09 11:38AM | 0 recs
Here's the thing

I can appreciate that Alegre was passionate for her candidate and that she and others feel that her candidate was the subject of a lot of unfair biases. Obama supporters would probably have been fuming mad if he lost because of low-information racist voters (not counting the fact that Obama received almost all of the African American vote from South Carolina on). Dean supporters like me were pissed beyond belief at the DLC, Terry McAullife and the corporate media when the apparatus screwed our candidate (or so we thought).

But you know what? Clinton didn't just lose because of sexism.

I was an Edwards supporter up until he dropped out. Then I switched to Obama. The dishonesty of Alegre and other self-proclaimed Clinton supporters on DailyKos was a huge, huge factor in my decision to support Obama.

Yes, we can use Alegre's help in electing Barack Obama to be the next President. But just as Obama's supporters need to examine to what extent Obama benefitted from sexism, Clinton's most vocal supporters need to examine to what extent their own actions helped to sink their candidate. If they can figure that out, their candidate might do better next time.

by maxomai 2008-06-09 11:38AM | 0 recs
Alegre must not believe in what Hillary stood for

because Obama is advocating very similar policies to the policies that Clinton advocated during her campaign.

Alegre is part of a cult of personality, so much so that she can't let go.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-06-09 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre must not believe in what Hillary stood

Did you read the diary?

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre must not believe in what Hillary stood

Yes I did, and many of Alegre's diaries too.

The very first time I commented on one of Alegre's diaries, she instructed those who replied to my comment to ignore me.

Since then I give Alegre all the respect she accorded me.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-06-09 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

It is indeed ironic that Obama supporters were called cultists yet some (a minority of) Clinton supporters seem to be attached to the person rather than the policies.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-09 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I read a thread of comments last night. Any mention of "Obamabot" was almost always quite laughable, given how much these people were about her and not her policies.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 12:05PM | 0 recs
Something I can't understand

I just don't understand this.  How can Sen. Clinton's supporters blame sexism on her loss in the Democratic primary, yet still make the claim that she would have been the stronger general election candidate?  Especially considering all the examples in the video Alegre posted come from right wingers and/or the media?  (Not one thing came from Obama or his campaign.)

If sexism played against her against a fellow Dem, wouldn't it have been 10 times worse in the general?

And for the thing I really have a hard time understanding:

If Sen. Clinton's supporters claim Barack "...stepped back, and let them call her a b** and c***", then how in the world can they turn around and threaten to vote for McCain who actually called his wife a c*** and let a support call Hillary a bitch right to his face during a town hall and he did nothing.

by TexH 2008-06-09 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Something I can't understand

I think many who are ambivalent right now will get to that point.

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 12:04PM | 0 recs
WOW!

The obssession of Alegre by BO supporters is astounding! Really, get over yourselves.

This has certainly become a callout diary, even though I doubt that's what the diarist wanted it to be.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-09 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: WOW!

The comments qualify; you're right. Any suggestions on countering that?

by Falsehood 2008-06-09 12:03PM | 0 recs
I don't think you can counter it

This thread has become more about Clinton than Alegre.  Many people have chosen to highlight the negative rather than focus on what Alegre (or Clinton for that matter) did right (though I'd really like to have this limited to Alegre alone).

I'd like to see her re-engage too - but I do understand why she hasn't.  Who wants to weather constant bashing?  For weeks the only comments her diaries elicited were personal diatribes.  Few if any even tried to engage her - and if they did - they too were piled upon.

I didn't always agree with Alegre.  I wanted to discuss those differences - but the 'troll patrol' prevented that by harassing anyone not following their lead.  And here they are back again - bashing Alegre, bashing Clinton.  Conversation isn't impossible - but it's deuced difficult - and I have no earthly idea how to change that.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-09 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

First, Clinton's supporters should acknowledge how much of the obvious mysogeny was the creation of right-wing folk.  I'm not suggesting this is an intentional strategem by her supporters, but there's a bait and switch going on here where Limbaugh and his ilk push this stuff into the public discourse and it gets picked up as evidence that the Democratic party has this huge problem with sexism.  It's a divide and conquor strategy.

Let's remember a few things.  60% of the ballots in this primary were cast by women.  25% were cast by members of ethnic minorities.  The Democrats are a coalition party.  Of the voters who supported Obama, approx. 1/3 were African Americans.  Do we think they were motivated by sexism?  No.  Another 1/3 were white women.  Do we think they were so motivated?  No.  And the last 1/3 of his support came from white males (especially those younger than 45, with this becoming more concentrated at the younger end of the spectrum).

Remember, this was the Democratic primary, not a NASCAR race.  We got more than our fair share of college students, slackers, high school teachers with bulging midriffs, gay men, senior citizens who had attented Woodstock, etc.  

Who do you think the inventor of the Hillary Clinton nutcracker voted for during the last election?  I'm sure, I have no idea who came up with this, but what does your gut tell you?

This primary attracted just under 36 million voters, a bit more than half of the total who voted for Kerry in 2004, but that doesn't mean the other 90 million voters (again, if we're talking about the size of the 2004 electorate) didn't follow what was going on.

As for Allegre.  Not yet?  Sure, that's fair.  All we're asking is that you don't slam the door shut.  The question of which party is better for women's issues, over time, answers itself (which is why people like Steinem jumped on board so quickly, she's seen it all and knows the big picture).

While I don't to get into any tit-for-tat Obama vs. Clinton squabble, I just want to do a quick tally of what many of Clinton's supporters who are flirting with voting for McCain seem to think Clinton believes: 1) Obama is unfit to be president (Clinton passed the c-in-c test, so did McCain, Obama didn't); 2) Obama willingly benefitted from sexism;  3) Obama accused the Clintons of being racist;  4) Obama only won because the Dems jiggered their rules.

I don't think Clinton believes any of this.  

The Dems are a coalition party.  The last time we won the white vote was in 1968.  If we come out of this hating each other, there will be a lot of people in the GOP breaking out the cigars and champagne (and who thinks that'll be a diverse group?).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-09 11:57AM | 0 recs
Alegre's not there yet...and I don't care

The constant "I'm hurting, what are you going to do for me" crap has got to stop. It's embarrassing. You're an adult. Make an adult decision. If you really think McCain has your best interests at heart and is better for the country, then vote for him. You'll get the government you want--and deserve.

But don't come around whining, looking for some kind of validation. I'm not holding your hand. I'm not giving you hug. And I'm not going to be held hostage by a bunch of hothouse violets.

And if you think this is "hate speech" or "sexism", then you really, really need to get out more.

Sheesh.

by Rationalisto 2008-06-09 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet...and I don't care

I'm not hurting. I don't want hugging. I'm quite ready to vote for Obama who has won the nomination. What I'm not able to understand is why Obama fans like you think it's a good idea to keep regurgitating all this Clinton hating bs most of which has been generated by people like Matthews. If you think this is constructive in getting Democrats to unite behind your man, and my man now, you must have a few cents short of a dollar.  

by ottovbvs 2008-06-09 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet...and I don't care

How was that "regurgitating Clinton hating bs" when the above poster made no reference to the Clintons?

by BrighidG 2008-06-09 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet...and I don't care

While the video shows very clear evidence of sexism why is Obama in that video? How is what he is saying in the video sexist? It is trying to make him guilty by associating him with people he does not associate with.

by TMP 2008-06-09 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet...and I don't care

Whining?  I mind this characterization.  I put up with hate speech at DailyKos and HuffPo, in the pages of the New York Times, Slate, Time, Los Angeles, ad infinitum.  It was incredibly offensive and demeaning, and it was from Obama rank and file supporters, not to mention the pundits.  You don't believe me, check out the Women's Media Center--they created a montage of what happened during the campaign.  Look, you don't get to a new way of governing by trashing people with nasty ad hominem attacks--that should be obvious.  Obviously, some Clinton supporters have things to think about as well and apologize for, but your easy dismissal of out and out woman-hating bothers this woman.  You don't get to unity by dismissing the concerns of other people.  Do you dismiss concerns about racism?

by TinaH1963 2008-06-09 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I always thought it would be harder for a woman to be President than for a Black man. I think the fact that she is a woman, and a Clinton that was something she couldnt overcome. There are women I would love to see Obama put on the ticket with less baggage than Hillary. That statement Obama said wasn't sexiest so it should have been included in that video.

by Sylden37 2008-06-09 12:12PM | 0 recs
the whole video blames Obama

for the sexism of others. It doesn't matter who said it or why it's all still Obama's fault. This is scape goating.

by TMP 2008-06-09 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Can I assume you are not "black"?
I don't know where you are from but I would bet
a "black" man driving in an upscale neighborhood in your city would have a better chance being stopped if he was driving a nice car, than a white woman would.
When you are walking down the sidewalk are you more careful if three black men are walking toward you than if three white women are walking toward you?
Do you really want to compare the subjugation of women in American history to slavery?...

Do you really believe there are not racist white women? Is sexism still all around? Absolutely!
But let's stay away from who is demeaned the most...

by nogo postal 2008-06-09 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Actually I am Black, and what I meant was Women would have it harder to be seen as Commander in Chief. I think its easier to see a Black male in the role.

by Sylden37 2008-06-09 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Hide rating for calling out a poster in a diary title.

Moderators?

by rankles 2008-06-09 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

If you actually read the diary, you might have noted that he's defending her, not calling her out.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-09 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I don't read diaries that break MYDD terms of service.

by rankles 2008-06-09 10:55PM | 0 recs
Camille Paglia on Iron My Shirt

Paglia is certainly no fan of Hillary Clinton, and her feminism is certainly unconventional, but I have to say that her analysis of the "Iron My Shirt" episode is compelling to me.  

Another point: Most of the media fell hook, line and sinker for the "Iron my shirt!" stunt at a Hillary campaign event in January in New Hampshire, where two scruffy male hecklers were clearly in collusion with her staff. (The signs -- including one suspiciously permitted on the stage itself -- were carefully positioned and lit, and Hillary had a pat prepared line to draw camera attention to them.) Those dorky guys, at least one with a link to a radio station, are far too young to have the slightest knowledge of an era when women ironed men's shirts -- or when shirts needed ironing at all! Businessmen's shirts go to the cleaners nowadays, and everyone else's gear is just tossed into the dryer. That hoax was designed to reawaken the atavistic resentments of older women voters -- and it worked.

Food for thought, anyway.

And yes, I'd say that any sexism that Hillary suffered from was unfair, of course.  As was any racism that Barack suffered from.  

by Bargeron 2008-06-09 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Camille Paglia on Iron My Shirt

Paglia is a deranged nutcase. She listens to Rush Limbaugh all day. Thinks Madonna is an "artist".

by DonB11 2008-06-09 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Camille Paglia on Iron My Shirt

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater:  in what way is Madonna not an artist?

by Bargeron 2008-06-10 05:44AM | 0 recs
The problem with Alegre

   is that she honestly believes that Obama is sexist simply b/c he beat Hillary. We all knew this was what she was going to do.
by southernman 2008-06-09 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

She posts at NoQuarter. That's why she's not "there" yet. She's apparently not even trying to get there, or here, or anywhere, but the dead-end of anti-Obama personality politics.

by Addison 2008-06-09 12:44PM | 0 recs
Does she? Really?

I've only been able to stomach going there a couple of times - but I did not see any posts by Alegre.  Do you have examples you can cite (links please)?

If not - then please don't repeat something that may not be true.  If she does post there - and her posts have been racist in nature - I want to see them.  Frankly - I just couldn't hang around looking.  The overt racism really made me nauseous (no lie).  What is wrong with those people?

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-09 07:45PM | 0 recs
What happened to the KFC?

Someone should have overturned their buffet table for carrying such an offensive sign about Hillary. I would have threatened the manager.

by Pravin 2008-06-09 12:57PM | 0 recs
Racism by Obama's campaign

It was the Obama's campaign who painted the Clintons as racist. The Clintons had done so much for the black community despite taking hits from the right and guess where takes them today? A betrayal in votes. An average of 90-10 votes and it even went up to 93-7. If this is not racism from the AA community i don't know that is.

And not to say the 4 page memo coming out from Axerod attempting to dismantle the ties of the Clintons towards the black community.

The Obama campaign has tried their best to game everything to win the primaries. Now they have to live with their strategic consequences and it is not the responsibility of the Clintons to help them out.

As for me, my position on Obama was very favourable in January but has gone down the drain ever since. Many of us here felt what Alegre felt and i'm deeply convince that Obama will have to spent a lot more time closer to the election in Pennslyvania and Ohio. Else we'll really have a McBush in Nov. Isn't it ironic when we have a sure win Presidential race to a close race?

by stevent 2008-06-09 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism by Obama's campaign

What specifically did they do for "the Black community" again? And please don't give that Blacks did so well economically under them because more Blacks went to prison under them also. Please what did  they do that was targeted to the we in "the Black community". What initiatives? what laws? What policies? I know they have Black friends...

by TMP 2008-06-09 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

The race card was played on the Clinton's by Obama's team with his full support and knowledge.

Obama himself referred to Bill Clinton's comments right after SC just about 3 weeks ago or so. He said, their blaming me, HE is the one that said "it". As if "it" was a racists statement. Obama knows better. Let's see what "it" is.

On his way to his car Bill Clinton was asked "is Obama so good that it takes the two of you to beat him?"

Clinton responded as he walked to his car: "Jesse Jackson won here (SC) in 1984 & 1988, he ran a good race, Obama has run a good race here, he's run a good race EVERYWHERE, but there are still many contests to go."

Bill did what he was supposed to do, he was advocating for his wife and downplaying her opponents victory. There isn't a thing in the world wrong with anything he said and it certainly wasn't racists. Jesse Jackson said that there wasn't anything wrong with the comment.

But Obama and his team were sending out emails to all the reporters saying it was racist. The Clinton's didn't play the race card on themselves. It was a cynical ploy to win.

What can Obama do, he could admit what they did, he could appologize and he could tell his supporters, mainly the AA community, that Bill and Hillary did not play the race card but his own campaign did.

He could do that and it wouldn't cost him a thing, he would gain points for his honesty. Plus, it might educate some of his supporters.

Absent that he better put Hillary on the ticket or many Dem's will switch to being Independents and sit this election out or vote for McCain.

by mmorang 2008-06-09 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Bill Shaheen Clintons, NH cochair, and Mark Penn implied Obama was a coke dealer.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/12/13/clinton_apologizes_to_obama_ fo_1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtQxyawei YQ

Bob Kerry Clinton's national co-chair referred to Obama by his middle name about 6 times in 10 minutes and then assreted that Obama went to a "secular maddrasa".
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch ives/2007/12/a_madrassa_bob_kerrey_a_mad ras.php

Clintons Iowa headquarters were caught circulating anonymous email that Obama was a secret Muslim.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc hives/13820.html

And this was all before South Carolina. Obama did not need a list so many of us Black people kept our own mental list. I have provided the links to back it up and I have not even gone into what happaened after SC. What is so hypocritical is that some of you that think keeping a list of race baiting tactics is bad seem to have been keeping your own lists as evidenced by the video above. I guess it does not really that bad when it happens to the Black guy.

by TMP 2008-06-09 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

No.  I don't know why.  I do know that with the amount of information that is available, we can all find truth that fits our ideas.  It's just not hard.  It takes someone being able to scrutinize their own position.  Otherwise, people see everything only through the lens of what they want to be true.  

It's like watching a basketball game.  If you're a Celtics fan, you see a charge.  If you're a Lakers fan, you see a blocking foul.  

If someone wishes to believe that every single negative thing that happened was of some ominous intent, and that they were all done with merciless purpose, there is no way to change how that person feels.  Every event will be seen through only one mental filter.  

Honestly, it's not my job to convince anyone who to vote for on a site like this.  

This obsession with Alegre is really weird.  Honestly, if she feels like she can vote for Barack Obama, great.  If she feels like she can't, fine.  

It simply isn't worth the time to try to reach the very edge of the spectrum of Clinton devotees and followers.  

by ottto 2008-06-09 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Without Hillary as his running mate Obama loses. Alegre may not be there yet but I and many like me won't ever get there. I live in Texas. Neither Obama nor Hillary will win Texas anyway. I will go in in November and vote for every democrat on the ballot-something I can guarantee you that most obama-naics won't do.  But when it comes to the presidential race I will either leave it blank or write-in Hillary. I want everyone to know why Obama lost.

Why can't you make it better and come up with something that will make us come around? Because Obama used the discredited repug talking points to call Clinton a liar , untrustworthy and willing to do anything to win. He attacked her character and democrats don't do that to other democrats. He twisted her words and Bill Clinton's words to call her a racist when she is no such thing. And he could do that because for the moment he is the media's darling. And MOST importantly on this blog and 100's of others you have made it clear you don't think you need us to win. You still make it clear everyday when people continue to spew the nonsense that a joint ticket is a waste of time. So have at it. Try and win without us. I dare you.

by Bornagaindem 2008-06-09 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?
If McCain becomes the next president your repoductive rights go right out the window. I think some people forget that John McCain is "pro-life".
If this is what you want than shame on you. Just because your candidate lost you're willing to risk hurting all women.  A true feminist would never do this.
by needtoknow 2008-06-09 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

what fantasy world do you live in where this all happened?

these are some absolutely serious accusations, very similar to a lot of the other highly-vocal anti-Obama posts out there.  quite frankly, there's nothing backing your assertions here.

post some evidence, please.

by fightinfilipino 2008-06-09 02:14PM | 0 recs
Source it or shut up

by BrighidG 2008-06-09 04:22PM | 0 recs
Ok, so I watched the video

And in only one instance was there anything that Senator Obama himself actually said, and that was, "when she's feeling down, she launches attacks."

Yeah, I think the sexist right-wing garbage is intolerable, as is a lot of the stuff in the media.

But what Alegre and the others who feel this way haven't done is show any believable way in which Barack Obama contributed to this.  Alegre's quote refers to Obama's lies about Hillary.  I need more examples of that.

The other complaint is that Obama didn't bend over backwards to defend Clinton against sexist attacks from outsiders.  I didn't notice Clinton going out of her way to defend Obama from attacks on his race or misinformation about his religious beliefs.

by hekebolos 2008-06-09 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I read comments on why this on alegre...
A few days ago there was a highly rec'd diary
Stand up for alegre...this is a response...

We also remember Jerome admitting banning those for a "pile-on" for those responding to alegre's
"Is this snark"...

This is a post ..to remind some..that alegre..who posts on a regular basis at notwentyfivecents..was not only allowed to post here but was defended by the soul of MyDD..

MyDD is returning to the strength it acquired during the time it help lead the fight for Lamont. MyDD was a critical mass in forcing Liebabyman from our Party.

For those that cannot accept that Sen. Obama is our nominee. For those that cannot accept that Sen. Clinton gave a speech worth remembering in support of Obama...there is plenty of room for you at Hilisfortyfour...no25cents and other GOP shill places...

by nogo postal 2008-06-09 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?
Oh catfish...
seeing you on the rec list..
requires me to set aside my opinion of you..
by nogo postal 2008-06-09 01:34PM | 0 recs
TODAY iceberg is still posting her vile

smears on this site - - how about shutting her up ???

by kosnomore 2008-06-09 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I doubt she will post here again.
It is clear from comments and rec's...that even those that encouraged her in the past...
are at their core true to the Democratic Party...

I hope this diary is kinda of a group closure on the weirdness that took place on all sides..

A couple of healing songs...

tap yer toes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ODJHUX_ EM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVvUQqDVW i4

by nogo postal 2008-06-09 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I've heard all those things for years, in person, and from people I know.

Not one time was it from a Democrat. It was from those who are now McCain supporters.

So right -wing trolls cause Hillary supporters to conflate Democrats with them.?

Well played, on their part  Pathetic on ours

by wrb 2008-06-09 02:00PM | 0 recs
Just another batshit crazy dead ender diary.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-09 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Sexism is terrible.  But so is racism, homophobia and ageism.  I cringed when kos posted a story on the color of john mccain's teeth the other day.  Like this has anything to do with the qualifications needed to run the country?!  

What I truly wish is that the coverage of our political candidates reflects what an important decision choosing our leaders actually is.  Frequently, the media falls flat.  But it doesn't fall flat exclusively for Hillary Clinton.  Certainly, the Clintons have been put through the wringer by the media for years and they will probably continue to do so in some fashion for years to come.  However, the fact that hillary has been mistreated by some in the media (probably) and some crazy sexists that showed up at her rallies etc. (definitely!) doesn't mean that she deserves to have the nomination handed to her.  

That video turned my stomach, but the prejudices that still exist in many corners of this country will simply be propelled if a split democratic party puts john mccain into the white house.

by bluedavid 2008-06-09 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

If Obama had nothing to do with the b*tch meme, then why at one of his SC rallies did he play "I have 99 problems but the b*tch isn't one of them"

by Sensible 2008-06-09 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

He didn't play that and you know it.

It's been gone over a million times in the blogosphere.

But you're a liar.

by Bush Bites 2008-06-09 03:58PM | 0 recs
Video or it didn't happen

If a blind item in the NY Post (that bastion of journalism) says it than it must be true!

Should I start unloading every ridiculous rumor I've heard about the Clintons.

by BrighidG 2008-06-09 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I don't want Hillary on an Obama ticket. He is going to lose. It is going to be 1972 all over again. Obama will have his coalition of liberal elites and african americans. That is not enough to win a general election.

I don't want Hillary blamed for the coming calamity. Dem elites will learn the same bitter lesson they they should have learned in 1972.

Hillary has to endorse Obama. She has no choice. She should sit back and watch Obama and his VP go down to defeat and she should start organizing her base for a run in 2012.

by DonB11 2008-06-09 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey troll
words you need to stay away from in order to fool us:
"going to lose"
"1972 all over again"
"liberal elites"
"Dem elites"
I have seen you before. last time you were in a boat screaming "row faster!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMBeKmViV lA
by nogo postal 2008-06-09 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Mark Warner will kick her ass.

by Bush Bites 2008-06-09 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

I'd love for you to explain to this working-class woman how she's a liberal elite but I don't think you'd have an answer.

by BrighidG 2008-06-09 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

If she sits back, she's persona non gratta in 2012, she has no shot.

Maybe even if he loses under any circumstances, she'll be blamed by some (rightly or wrongly).

What she needs to be doing is be seen hitting McCain hard. On:

1. Abortion (most don't know he's anti Roe)

  1. Health Care/SCHIP
  2. Bread and Butter Issues

I didn't see much in that clip from Obama that was sexist.

by Searching For Pericles 2008-06-09 05:46PM | 0 recs
by nogo postal 2008-06-09 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

The wallowing in self pity that still goes on on this website is mindboggling.  "I feel this" and "I feel that."

Obama had just as much crap to deal with as Hillary did.  He just didn't whine about it.  Did Hillary speak out about all the racist vandalism to Obama's campaign offices?  Of course not.  Nor would we expect her to.

Grow up everyone.  This is not about your precious personal feelings.  It's about continuing our warring foreign policy, losing our right to choose, continuing the downward spiral of our economy that will be felt for generations to come.

Or not.

Shit or get off the pot.  The rest of us have work to do.  We don't want four more years of Bush policy.

by tibbs 2008-06-09 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

Its not at all clear to me why it was Obama's job to defend Hillary against smears coming from third parties unrelated to Obama's campaign.  He was in a campaign against her.  If Alegre's (and other's) biggest gripe about Obama is that he didn't sufficiently defend his main rival, then I say "tough shit."  It wasn't his job to do so.  It was hers.  If she couldn't defend herself on her own and need Obama to do it for her, then she has no business running for President.

by XoFalconXo 2008-06-09 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

persuasive video. however,  i just note one clip referencing something from the obama campaign and there was nothing sexist about that clip.

by gatti1 2008-06-09 03:41PM | 0 recs
If she can't vote for Obama, she can't.

What are you gonna do?

I never voted for Bill Clinton.

If you don't respect someone, you shouldn't vote for them.

by Bush Bites 2008-06-09 03:54PM | 0 recs
Alegre's not there yet because

She doesn't want to be there yet. She'd rather wallow in the mud with everyone else at NoQuarter.

by BrighidG 2008-06-09 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

no, and I don't much care.

More victimization, more refusal to acknowledge the real reasons Hillary Clinton lost this nomination, more of the unwillingness and/or inability to acknowledge Clinton's own responsibility for her record, her votes, and her campaign.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-09 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

And which Obama supporter called HIllary Clinton a b** (GOP consultant Alex Castellanos? some random and female McCain supporter in Maine?) and a c*** (McCain supporter and GOP consultant Roger Stone?)? Never mind the absurdity that Obama somehow "let" these people who don't exist do that thing that they didn't do.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-09 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATED - Sorry

Alegre working for Obama isn't giving his campaign the best.

by LtWorf 2008-06-09 05:38PM | 0 recs
um? Obama bashing?

by hope monger 2008-06-09 08:00PM | 0 recs
&quot;Obama is not a muslim,

as far as I know

-Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

There, Obama maybe didnt come out and police the media but he sure as hell didn't pile on with the republicans on the issues the Republicans were trying to use against him.

Well, actually, where did the Obama is a Muslim email start from? Do we know for sure?

by hope monger 2008-06-09 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Obama is not a muslim,

Just so you know...she was asked this question repeatedly in an interview and she said repeatedly that he [Obama] is a Christian.  The interview kept pressing her and she finally said in exasperation, "He is a Christian, as far as I know."  The idea that she fostered this idea is flat-out wrong.  She also said in that same interview that candidates were always been hit with scurrilous attacks.  Her quote was taken out of context.

by TinaH1963 2008-06-09 11:37PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads