I agree that David Axelrod is better campaign strategist than Patty Sallis Doyle/Mark Penn. However, this in no way reflects abilities of the candidates. In fact, Obama has made some serious goofs in his "judgment" that convince me that he would be a terrible president:
(1) Jeremiah Wright as a campaign spiritual leader is just plain bad judgment.
(2) Samantha Power was terrible. In her "monster" quote she became too emotional and she called the entire voters of Ohio "obsessed" and she said looking at Clinton makes her go "uugggh." That was terribly immature and stupid of Power to do that. A professional, especially one who is potentially going to be a white house advisor, should not make such unprofessional and irresponsible statements. I could never make statements like that in my job, and neither could you.
(3) Obama pissed off the President of Pakistan big time back in August 2007. It was a serious incident of immaturity and lack of experience when he finished his threats with the words "and whether the President of Pakistan likes it or not." I heard that loud and clear and knew in my heart that he could never be the President.
However, I agree with you, MarkieParkie, that Bill Clinton should have been more careful with his words. I think he said what he said in retaliation to Michelle Obama's insane comments.
Lombard, in all honesty I DO NOT think this is a fair comment. You mentioned that Clinton makes gender an issue, however I see his camp making race an issue more often, and in more crucial ways.
For example: I personally know two superdelegates (in NY) for Clinton who were approached by Obama's camp and told (right after supertuesday) that they better make their vote reflect popular vote because they wouldn't want to be responsible for preventing the first african-american candidate from receiving the nomination by exercising independent judgment. Isn't that using race in a cheap way? I was appalled when I heard it, but I know it is true.
Also, don't forget the Obama campaign's use of the race card when Bill Clinton used the term fairy tale. Isn't that using race in a cheap way?
I don't see Clinton using gender to cheapen her campaign. She seems to hardly mention it. However, her supporters are starting to bring the issue up more often. We are forgetting that there were bomb threats to her campaign in NH, she was told 'do laundry not politics' in NH. I do not think she is creating the gender issue. I think it already exists.
If Obama is the nominee, there is no one to blame. Historically, the person with the most money usually wins, and that his him hands down. He's not my candidate, but I have to be honest about the circumstances.
Also, if Obama is the candidate, I will partially blame the media. There is something funny in the water with this media. I just overheard an Oregonian say that he felt good about voting for Obama when CNN told him educated people vote for Obama. He then made a 'hillbilly' joke about Kentucky. It was weird. To some extent, the media is telling people how to vote by means of demographics. The media is probably the largest force to be reckoned with in this campaign.
Sexism has not been explored in this campaign nearly enough. It has gotten no respect, although it clearly exists. And guess what, it is making women (myself included) super-angry. Don't underestimate the results this will have in the coming months.
I agree. I am a Clinton supporter who will vote for McCain if Obama wins the nom. You said it beautifully, it is not about revenge. It is about how I cannot with a clear conscious support a campaign that IS TRULY about bullying.
I agree and I am starting to get suspicious. People at my job (law firm), many friends, neighbors, two or more family members, they ALL have nasty things to say about HRC supporters. But I don't blame them because the media gives them a nasty impression of HRC supporters. CNN gives the impression that all of her voters are blue collar (untrue) and I even saw one tag read "Obama and the Archie Bunker problem" which totally implies that blue collar automatically means racists and that Obama will have a hard time getting that vote. It was insulting.
I think some of the harshness directed at HRC and directed at her voters is as a resut of the media bias. Just my humble opinion.
I've seen that on DailyKOS too. Some voters - on BOTH sides - are taking this too far and only want their candidate. In fact, wasn't it Michelle Obama herself who said that she would have to give it considerable before voting for HRC should HRC become the nominee??
To be honest with you, I don't feel like bashing either BHO or HRC in this diary. I think the point of this diary is that DailyKOS used to be an exchange of ideas in the liberal sense, but now there is too much anger there.
....lost their moral compass both on blog sites and in the media! It's crazy.
I think this primary has gotten the best of us, whether you are an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter. It's gotten to the point where there is more anger directed at the Clintons than at Bush!! What happened to us as Democrats. We are tearing each other apart.
When all this messiness settles, let's hope DailyKOS goes back to being what it was months ago.
It is clear that Ferraro screwed up. But HRC has noted that she does not agree. Moreover, HRC campaign is correct to point that (1) that there have been attacks by both sides, and (2) that it is time to stick to the issues.
I don't think M. William's response was negative. But it certainly had a 'take the high road' air to it. I liked it. I'm glad she is on Clinton's team.