If Obama had more "experience," do you think this woman would feel differently? Would she feel less disappointed, less frustrated with the media, less conflicted about her options?
I sincerely doubt it.
I respect her passion for her candidate, and I admire that she won't vote for McCain, but watching this clip makes it clear that her dilemma has everything to do with her intense feelings for Clinton and very little to do with Obama's resume.
I don't doubt her sincerity or her dedication to the Democratic party. I don't think she's selfish or stupid or self-centered. But the "inexperience" excuse seems like just an excuse, and one that can be easily overcome between now and November.
I guess you're too unsophisticated to get the joke.
It's not making fun of red wine-drinking, lobster-eating, gay marriage-loving, terrorist-supporting Democrats.
No, it's making fun of people who stubbornly BELIEVE that Democrats drink reds with shellfish and have moonlit conversations on the porch with their same sex partners about how they secretly want the terrorists to win.
It was definitely meant to imply that she is ballsy -- i.e., she's got balls.
Hillary is tough, women are not tough, therefore Hillary has balls. It's sexist by definition when applied to a woman.
But I don't know any females who were offended by it either, which is kind of my point. I thought it was one of the more blatantly sexist things that was said during this campaign, but people are more upset about the supposed subtext of "periodically" than they are about someone suggesting that it takes balls to run the country.
I think one of the most sexist comments of the entire campaign was when James Carville joked to Newsweek that if Hillary gave Obama "one of her cojones, they'd both have two." I guess if you're a strong woman you must have testicles, huh?
As the author of the "shameful" diary from last week, I agree that she is wholly entitled to blog and vote how she wants. And she shouldn't be personally harassed or attacked for doing so. I don't agree with what transpired in the comments of my diary (which is why I deleted it), and I don't understand the level of enmity that some people have towards her.
That said, every action has consequences. Alegre has decided to set up shop elsewhere for the express purpose of encouraging others not to support the presumptive nominee. She has written that she hopes some event will prevent Obama from becoming the nominee and she has disparaged the Democratic party. Those are choices she is free to make, but I believe that by doing so she gives up certain things in return.
She loses the right to be treated differently than any other person working against the Democrats' goals.
She loses the right to be shielded from open criticism.
She loses the right to expect our respect or to ask for our patience.
In other words, she doesn't deserve special treatment just because she used to be part of this community, and people shouldn't be accused of "bullying" for saying they disagree with her choices.
She's asking Democrats to come together to help Clinton, but she's made it clear here and on other sites that she has no interest in supporting the Democratic nominee. How's that for party unity?
I've been making twice-monthly donations to Obama's campaign since he announced his candidacy. I'd be happy to send money to Clinton, too, if it would help put the primary behind us, but I doubt it would have any effect on the diarist's outlook.
Too bad some people expect more from others than they do from themselves, huh?