Being a liberal heretic is a bitch, by michael hood

Let's get this straight about how I, me, personally, the Blatherguy feels about Obama vs Hillary.

I really like Obama. Really. He's substantive, likeable, and probably is the one.

But I've had questions -- not about Barack's character or intelligence, not about his politics; but about his electability in the general, and the durability of his perfervid supporters.

Asking these questions and being non-obasmic has battered old friendships and brought down scorn from liberals that surprise me with their truculence and scorn for input that questions their faith. 

Suddenly, it's not OK to have a contrary point of view in a primary even among Democrats! Seems we liberals are no different than the righties: it's OK to be bigoted or sexist when necessary.

I'm not the only one who feels this way. A nice lady, Lori wrote today: "I live in Iowa and like so many people I don't have a voice. Please don't stop giving your voice about Obama. It is nice to know there is someone out there that isn't drooling over that guy."

I'll grant you it's different, but this is reminiscent of the 2004 Howard Dean campaign which looked pretty good with all the screaming and purity uber alles; but it never felt quite right right to me. And it fell on its ass early.

Or the McGovern year where the kids got all pumped but by November, they'd wandered off bored by the process, and onto the next thing.

We're the ones who got all bent and yelled racist when someone had the audacity to call Barack "articulate." But the sexist belittling and vitriol heaped on Hillary that Dee Dee Meyers writes about is real and nonchalantly accepted. We tread around race like it was incest, but if its sexism, Katie bar the door! You only have to read the comments on BW or elsewhere to see that.

This shit has obscured this election decision for me; I find mice elf reacting to the un-liberal treatment of this candidate by her political cohort; this candidate whom fair critics agree is different from her opponent only in the intangibles, (besides in race and gender, of course).

I'm a strategic voter, not a from-the-heart type. Done that, never worked out. I've forsook the instant gratification of emotional come-to-Jesus appeals in politics as well as religion.

You can believe what you wanna believe about both candidates, but you'd best not base it on what you read or see in the media because so much of the MSM doesn't even pretend not to be anything but totally in the tank for Obama.

Keith Olbermann, whom I love and have watched religiously since he started on MSNBC, has turned his show into a segmented, daily, anti-Hillary "analysis." I can't watch him right now.

On MSNBC, the anti-Clinton shit is exactly as deep as you'll wade through on Fox News or in the barnyard of Rush Limbaugh. That great American, Sean Hannity started his so-called "Stop Hillary Express" the day after Bush was re-elected in 2004, and has provided anti-Clinton talking points that have been gleefully absconded by the Obamanians.   

I only hope there's something left of us when this is over.

(Despite I've been part of the MSM for nearly 20 years, I gotta tell you conservatives that I now get it about media bias; I don't think it's a liberal conspiracy like you do, but when the press has made up its mind, it's made up its mind... until it changes it, of course).

I wish they'd get this the hell done and over with. When it is, and if it's Barack who's nominated, I'll shut up and get on the train; you'll see me sweat no more.

But until then, it's still the primary season and it's your job to win my heart and mind (just the mind would be fine) and to not piss me off when I question your faith. You're the ones who claim this is a "new politics" of love that can reach across the aisle -- I'm not across the aisle, I'm on the pew right next to you.

But if you don't like me asking, then drink up and go somewhere else -- it ain't hard to find a comfy spot where the Barack Obama orthodoxy isn't challenged. 

Comments

[AuthenticAndrew]

I honestly have no idea why to choose one over the other, I just know that Hillary has prepared a long time for this and has experianced more trial and error in politics than Obama. I also think Bill Clinton would be a better first man than Obama's wildly unpatriotic nutball wife a first lady.

I don't realy understand why Obama supporters like him so much. I hope it's not because he seems like a nice guy, because that's the same as electing Bush because you think you can drink a beer with him (request denied). That's a reccuring problem with democracy, the electorate has a vague criteria for choosing a good leader when all the options are similar on the issues. I think a single person that just happens to know both Barack and Hillary from chatting at Washington parties would make a more informed choice single handedly than all the primary voters and caucus goers as a whole who have never met either of them in person and are going off whoever seems less bitchy or has nicer hair.

[Duffman]

Pretty well put Bla'M and therein your words are pretty much the same feelings I have. Over and above the 'universal health care' issue (which I think Mrs Clinton is most passionate and sincere on) I guess I just like her persona, toughness and how she fights back no matter what, after all she's been through. Through this latest ordeal she's also demonstrated compassion, and a 'softness' that never previously was prevalent (at least in public). I feel we know a great deal about her...she's been 'vetted' to the nth degree, whereas 'what do we REALLY know' about Obama?? My sister-in-law (on the phone the other day) who lives in Chicago has met and talked with Obama says that in the local area there he comes across very genuine and friendly and demonstrates great leadership qualities. But, we REALLY DON'T KNOW? I feel (as possibly you do) that when the McCain 'team' gets through with this, we may know a lot more obviously but in what light. I'm still hoping (maybe agains hope) that Mrs Clinton can 'solidly' win Ohio and Texas and be THE ultimate 'come-back' kid and start another resurgence. Bottom line for me is 'I just like her'. If Obama does in fact win out on this I will be disappointed, shocked, saddened and quite frankly bewildered as to what I will do. As said, right now I think I would just write in Mrs Clinton's name. Lo siento mucho - indeed! :)

[Upton]

Poll after poll show Obama to be the stronger candidate up against McCain. Hillary has very little drawing power outside of die hard Democrats. Even many Democrats will refuse to vote for her. Her negatives are higher than any candidate in recent history. She is just not well liked, blame it on gender, blame it on the Clinton name, blame it on bad luck, it doesn't matter. The truth is, if she were to be nominated she would drag the party down with her.

[wutitiz]

The biggest obstacle for Hillary is still the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton theory. It's actually a vacuous theory if you think about it--if Hillary is the best person for the job, who cares what the last names of the previous three jobholders were. But vacuous can work in elections.

For Obama, the bottom line is that Americans want to unite and move forward as a country, and electing a black man President is the ultimate way to affirm that. Obama has a chance at the vote of every American who wants to move forward, and that is by far the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Either is going to have to come up with a workable policy on Iraq to beat McCain.

[RadioWonkLance]

I appreciate Hillary Clinton's supporters that continue to stand up for her. On Point (KXOT 91.7 FM/KUOW2, M-F 1-3 pm, 9-11 pm) had a great show with Patricia Schroeder, Geraldine Ferraro, Ellen Goodman, and others discussing this on Tuesday which everyone should check out from the WBUR archives if they missed it.

I am drawn to another radio connection, however. In the wake of the 2004 election, This American Life host Ira Glass (in a speech in Boston, no less) berated the Democrats for not understanding that they needed to tell a better story to the electorate. Say whatever you want about the substance of the story, but you have to admit that of the candidates, Obama is the master storyteller.

I respect people like Michael Hood and older members of my own family that continue to support Hillary Clinton, I do recognize that serious and disturbing gender issues in this society have been revealed in the is campaign, and I will not mind if she somehow pulls off the nomination. However, right now the pragmatic side of me wants to follow the Ira Glass doctrine, and I think Obama's ability to broadcast a message outweighs anything the Republicans will be able to toss at him.

[joanie]

Obama's wildly unpatriotic nutball wife a first lady.

Sure no sexism here. My ass.

...move forward as a country, and electing a black man President is the ultimate way to affirm that.

Sure no sexism here. My ass.

I have come out finally for Obama for several reasons already posted. I do think he has become more specific and I, too, think he will pull more people to the polls and that's good for the left.

However, the language I hear used regarding Hillary is obviously sexist and obviously has influenced every single one of us. It has influenced me to become angry. I'll stand against any abusive language when used against Hillary just because it reflects macho sexism and there's no place for such archaic thinking.

Anybody with a brain who wouldn't vote for Hillary over McCain is either a sexist or a warmonger. Take your pick.

[wutitiz]

Anybody who would interpret my 'move forward as a country' line as sexist is an idiot or a www...take your pick. You can sub black PERSON if it makes you feel better, even though there are no black women running.

[DT]

I enjoyed this post. He's basically saying that he likes Obama, but he has a lot of questions. The main one being about his electability. But, Obamamania is everywhere, even in the news media, and people don't like others asking hard questions about Obama. BM just wants the Democratic nominee to be whoever will be most likely to beat McCain, but he will support whoever the nominee is, but until that time, he will continue to ask the questions he thinks need to be asked, and if you don't like it, you don't have to read this blog. Better yet, why don't you try to explain why you think Obama will be the best nominee.

[abob]

Michelle Obama is a political liability. She is completely caught up in this campaign and has lost all perspective. Her wild eyed look when in the spotlight suggests a woman who is out of control. It's only a matter of time before her motormouth blows up her husband's bid for the White House.

[mercifurious]

Bla'M. I totally understand where you're at. But as mentioned here:
http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2008/02/the-scheiss-man.html#comment-102052344

...I still have many reservations about HRC - none of them related to sexism or her gender:

(Responding to your question:
Should by chance Hillary win, are you going to say she stole it and walk away from the Democratic Party?)

Bla'm - "No" and "Never". I've said this before, but again:

First and foremost, I am a member of the Democratic Party - always have been. Not a Clintonite. Not an Obamanite. Not a "Left-Leaning Independent" who reads WorldNetDaily. I'm not about to turn-over my membership because of an interparty personality contest.

But right now, I'm fighting like hell for the best candidate (we all are, and Chuthlu-bless us for that!) One that can be trusted, be our advocate, and be best representative of the DNC Platform.
In my well-sourced opinion, Clinton does not meet that criteria - and I've given several reasons why - and therefore she is not my first choice. Obama does better - and after this last Telecom vote, he's not afraid to make tough votes under fire. His charisma is just a bonus - a great attribute that can bring independents into the fold without compromising principles. Simple.

Beyond this, for the first time in a long time two candidates - both great choices - have made it past Super Tuesday (plus) without a clear winner. Thus, the debate continues. More debate = good thing: our eventual candidate will be more thoroughly vetted, and not just "the best we could come up with" (McCain).

People and pundits are then fearing a brokered convention. I'm not. We have a great chairman - a strong democrat with no personal allegiences & no dog in this fight. I trust his judgement in working with both sides to form a winning coalition. With the votes this close, both Obama & Clinton will have an important role in the eventual nominee's campaign. Again: exciting prospect.

Brass tacks: In November, this will come down to a clear difference between core values and principles: There's vs. Our's.

After evaluating my values against both, there is not doubt where I stand. An easy choice.
------------------------

And no, unlike the value-less village idiot, I wont "write-in" the loser's name in November.

For someone who said
"I suggest you doubters of Mrs Clinton Fill In The Form and put away your differences. :)"
...It doesn't sound like you've filled in the form yourself.

[mercifurious]

Bla'M. I totally understand where you're at. But as mentioned here:
http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2008/02/the-scheiss-man.html#comment-102052344

...I still have many reservations about HRC - none of them related to sexism or her gender:

(Responding to your question:
Should by chance Hillary win, are you going to say she stole it and walk away from the Democratic Party?)

Bla'm - "No" and "Never". I've said this before, but again:

First and foremost, I am a member of the Democratic Party - always have been. Not a Clintonite. Not an Obamanite. Not a "Left-Leaning Independent" who reads WorldNetDaily. I'm not about to turn-over my membership because of an interparty personality contest.

But right now, I'm fighting like hell for the best candidate (we all are, and Chuthlu-bless us for that!) One that can be trusted, be our advocate, and be best representative of the DNC Platform.
In my well-sourced opinion, Clinton does not meet that criteria - and I've given several reasons why - and therefore she is not my first choice. Obama does better - and after this last Telecom vote, he's not afraid to make tough votes under fire. His charisma is just a bonus - a great attribute that can bring independents into the fold without compromising principles. Simple.

Beyond this, for the first time in a long time two candidates - both great choices - have made it past Super Tuesday (plus) without a clear winner. Thus, the debate continues. More debate = good thing: our eventual candidate will be more thoroughly vetted, and not just "the best we could come up with" (McCain).

People and pundits are then fearing a brokered convention. I'm not. We have a great chairman - a strong democrat with no personal allegiences & no dog in this fight. I trust his judgement in working with both sides to form a winning coalition. With the votes this close, both Obama & Clinton will have an important role in the eventual nominee's campaign. Again: exciting prospect.

Brass tacks: In November, this will come down to a clear difference between core values and principles: There's vs. Our's.

After evaluating my values against both, there is not doubt where I stand. An easy choice.
------------------------

And no, unlike the value-less village idiot, I wont "write-in" the loser's name in November.

For someone who said
"I suggest you doubters of Mrs Clinton Fill In The Form (DNC membership) and put away your differences. :)"
...It doesn't sound like you've filled in the form yourself.

[coiler]

Isn't this what the selection process personifies-- people who are passionate over their choices. The media sucks but if it comes down to folks who are supposedly making an informed decision, then the increasing rise of Internet blogs and forums may have made the MSM irrelevant.

Are were supposed to support Hillary because of the anti-Clinton bias from the media and the right? I think I vote more on substance than pity. The progressives came out in 06' to stop the war and scandals that was in the news (still is) Hillary wasn't there, along with quite a few other dems.

Is mediocrity the standard of America and we can't do better because people might object? You guys are so afraid. Let's face it, Clinton cannot go on without Obama. Barack may not end the invasion of Iraq but I need more than "I had no regrets voting for the resolution"...

We wouldn't be having these concerns if more people voted--whose fault is that and what does that say about future candidates in a society sloughing off their responsibilities?

This country is nearing FUBAR, the Iraq debacle seems to be off the table, yet it threatens to quaff up whats left of the federal budget along with tax cuts and handouts to large corporations.

My candidate was Edwards. Where was the pity on a populist candidate like him? Doesn't the same media critique come into play when he was cast aside?

People elected Carter, and the earlier Clinton based on charisma and change. After 8 years of a wrecked nation, it may happen again.

[coiler]

Yes, I forgot about the FISA vote where Hillary was a no show. We are talking about the constitution here as it relates to warrant-less spying, after all. The constitution....ok?

[Duffman]

merci: probably one of (if no 'the') best posts I've seen you make. [Confused links to their's and ours, but I knew what you meant]
:)

[mercifurious]

Thanks, I guess.

So seriously: If Obama wins, will you write-in Hillary's name in November? The GOP would love if you did this, you know. How is this not total political masterbation?

You said
this
"I suggest you doubters of Mrs Clinton Fill In The Form and put away your differences. :)"

...But it doesn't sound like you have filled in the form yourself.
Just because your pick doesn't win, you don't toss the checkerboard and go home (or maybe you do).

That was my whole central thesis: I vote based on party platform - not personality (ie "I just like her")

[Duffman]

No, you're right (in this case) I will probably vote for Sen Obama even tho I consider myself an independent and yes I'm more of a person than a party voter. Sen Obama would definitely be the better of the two - between him and McCain.
Still hoping for that magical 'come-back', tho. :)

[DT]

Question for Obama supporters. Why do you think Obama has a better chance than Clinton at beating McCain? I'm for Obama, but I think Clinton has a better chance at beating McCain.

[AuthenticAndrew]

McCain is an old war hero with tons and tons of experiance and braod apeal between conservatives and moderates. McCain makes Obama looks like a spring chicken, the same is not true of Hillary. She's no war hero but she's a woman in a male dominating game, she's been there longer and she has moderate apeal. I honestly don't get why people hate her. Are they still bitter about that health care fiasco 15 years ago? Is it because she's a bitch? Which stupid reason is it?

[Will]

Obama is a Phenomenon, a force of Nature, and his wave is crashing forward now, the shore in sight, the rocks. It's like that crazy lawyer says, and then the Clooney character repeats at the end of the superb Michael Clayton, "I am Shiva, Destroyer of Worlds." Such is Obama, for we are at a point where the ground we stand on must be changed, and The Corporate Complex taken on. When you poke a Dragon, though, it tends to want to fight back. Obama, through David Alexander and the Chicago Machine, and with the joining of the Kennedy Clan, is The Hope Machine, and it is yet to be fully engaged. Hang on! The times you see, you wing nut Seattle Elites (haven't you heard how greedy you are?), are a changing...Suddenly, I hang on every word that Gregoire says, and I barely acknowledged her before the endorsement. He has brought us together....There is a religious fervor, this is a movement simmering...It's No Country for Old Men, and yes, There Will Be Blood...

[mercifurious]

I honestly don't get why people hate her. Are they still bitter about that health care fiasco 15 years ago? Is it because she's a bitch? Which stupid reason is it?

Nice strawmen* Andrew, but no.

First off, I don't hate her (or anyone).

I simply have factual policy-related issues with her as a candidate:

A.) Iraq authorization
B.) Iran authorization (ie not learning her lesson from "A")
C.) Telecom immunity vote no-show despite speech(es) claiming to care about privacy, obtrusive government, and checks & balances.

This tells me she would rather take the road of political expediency rather than stand up for what's right.

* Is this NPI Andrew? If so, I really expect more from you. Leave the strawmen for Bush press conferences.

[howie in seattle]

Hey you're not the only liberal heretic out here. Since February '07 when I "came out" for Obama, I have felt that way, too. Until recently many liberals and netroots activists
supported Edwards, Dodd, Gore or whoever and scorned those of us for supporting Obama.

[howie in seattle]

Hey you're not the only liberal heretic out here. Since February '07 when I "came out" for Obama, I have felt that way, too. Until recently many liberals and netroots activists
supported Edwards, Dodd, Gore or whoever and scorned those of us for supporting Obama.

[Wild Bill]

OBAMA IS THE LIGHT, the rising sun; the choppers in Apocalypse Now gliding through...
Through The Chicago Machine, fueled by Kennedys and (I predict) Carter and Gore,
The Hope Machine wave roars to the shore, to the rocks,,,,
This is about upsetting the whole damnned Apple Cart, about changing the ground we stand on...taking on the Corporate Interest, which, when poked resemble a Pit Bull guarding its bones and going Mad.
Listen Up all us greedy Seattle folks, don't look now, but, we are part of the problem, too.
The People are coming...what do we stand on, and for, after all. These days, It's No Country for Old Men, and Yes, There Will Be Blood....

[nevets]

Liberals would vote for a Commie if they had a "D" by their name. Wait, thats what the progressive party is full of nowadays. Commies.

[haha]

Merci: There's vs. Our's. -- nice.

[mercifurious]

Ahhhh the sweet sounds of Never-Nevetsland. Did we just step off the way-back machine into the 1950s?

Can't get your Bogeyman straight, Nevets? Let me help:
It's gotta be either the Commies, the A-rabs, or the Islamofascists.

But what about the A-rabs you buy your oil from?

And what about the Islamofascists we support against the commies?

And what about the Commie Arabs we support against the Islamofascists?

Relax Nevets.
No need to think critically.
Call your Big Brother affiliate, and ask who Oceania's enemy is this week

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

[mercifurious]

Ahhhh the sweet sounds of Never-Nevetsland. Did we just step off the way-back machine into 1955?

Can't get your Bogeyman straight, Nevets? Let me help:
It's gotta be either the Commies, the A-rabs, or the Islamofascists.

But what about the A-rabs you buy your oil from?

And what about the Islamofascists we support against the commies?

And what about the Commie Arabs we support against the Islamofascists?

Relax Nevets.
No need to think critically.
Call your Big Brother affiliate, and ask who Oceania's enemy is this week

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

[chucks]

You are so right nevets, Liberal pergressive democrats would vote for the tooth fairy if he/she were was well spoken and promised that all of those free quarters would keep coming (with COLA's). Of coarse all cost would be charged to anybody that makes more money than they (the rich).

[chucks]

Glad to see it in print, on this fine blog Michael, that at least one liberal American understands what has pissed me off for years. If the press decides that they want something, the story is slanted for ever there after. Generally, the press is liberal, therefor we conservatives are screwed. Not often do we get to see them go after a liberal politician without positive proof of child molestation, rape or some other such evil. Really surprised to see them driving the "press bus" over Clinton, in favor of Obama.

[Duffman]

With all due respect (and I mean that chucks) on this I must agree with merci. Even tho I'm not one to be devoted to a particular party, if in face all of the points of the party are analyzed and one agrees with all or most, I don't think it wrong to go with that party. Party loyalty is not a taboo or a weakness or a sign of gullability; it's a studied committment. In reading merci's points over time I think he's really committed and I would not disagree with that M.O. even tho its not mine. I'm a 'person' voter and always have been. In fairness I think merci and others would not go carte blanc on the party if the nominee were point by point against their liking.

[J.Hova]

We thought Chuckles was voting for O, guess he changes his tune more often than the prez on the economy.

[Tommy008]

Michelle Obama recenty said in a speech that Barack's campaign primaries period is the first time in her adult life she's felt really proud of her country...she wrote in her master's thesis in Princeton that she was comitted to "fight the white opressor". Like Oprah, she's a not so closet racist. As Larry Elder wrote in his book, in current day America blacks are more racist than whites. I'm sure GOP/ROVE RESEARCH has dug up more gem's from Michelle's mouth and pen, not to mention the future Michelle bloopers between now and Nov. that will actually be inadvertant relevations of her racism, hatred of America and goofball radicalism that can be easilt exploited by McCain, and cause 5-10 point drops in Obama's polling numbers.

[sparky]

DAMMIT my school district has blocked all blogs, so I have to wait until I get home to read and post, late as it is (8:00pm)

Regarding all the hopeful in the past....howard dean was not taken down because of his enthusiasm or his ability to inspire people..he was taken down by a media machine that was not willing to let him break them up, not willing to let him point out their support of the war. Diane Sawyer finally admitted that they had used an area microphone that allowed them to mute the yelling and screaming around him to make him look like he was the only one yelling, and thus, somehow unhinged.

Times are different now...few people support the war, few people are fooled anymore by the fear-peddling, and, like me, they are are sick
to death of the name calling and lies. We are more organized this time, and we are more vigilant about what the neo-cons try to pull. Fewer people believe the stupid rightwing crap, such as Mrs Obama not being patriotic, or him being a Muslim, or him not wanting to wear a flag pin--not that the media does not try to pound those messages
home every night. Obama "mania" is another media talking point...his supporters that I know are not overcome by his presence..they are encouraged that he continues to rise above the fray and is easily handling the smears that come his way.

I disagree with a lot of the things he stands for. But his approach is one of healing and getting
back on track. His message is about WE. Hillary and McCain's message is about them. They use the old ways of responding --sarcasm, name-calling, putting down instead of building up. Did you see Hillary this past weekend as she mocked Obama's
message of hope? So its bad to want to feel good again about our country? Look at the size and make-up of the crowds Obama attracts...people who want more than the old ways.

Yes, some people don't like Hillary because she is a woman. But I dont care for her because of her lack of judgement in picking advisors and her inability to remain cool and level headed even when angry. That is not a gender trait..as
I said before, McCain has the same problem. I dont care for her because of what I believe is her overstating her experience in the White House. She did not determine policy, she did not make tough decisions that affected national security.

McCain has already been caught lying, on tape and in written depositions, about his relationships
with ALL lobbyists. He thinks another 100 years in Iraq is just fine.

Why WOULDN'T I prefer Obama???

[wutititz]

What the media did to Howard Dean over 'I have a scream' is the exact same thing they did to Dan Quayle over the spelling of 'potato,' or Cheney's hunting accident.

You take something dumb and pound away until it's tattoed in the public mind. You never criticize directly--you use the 'detractors say' method.

Left-wingers never seemed to care much, in fact they were joining in the fun, until the method was applied to one of their own.

[PugetSound]

sparky
obama has something that scares the media.
he has the ability to talk past them to the people.

just like reagan. and that scares the media.

[PugetSound]

wutitiz
you are spot on.

[PugetSound]

"* Is this NPI Andrew? If so, I really expect more from you. Leave the strawmen for Bush press conferences.

Posted by: mercifurious | February 28, 2008 at 12:51 PM"

hey Merci
all I can say, when you go through Andrew's drive thru I sure wouldn't eat the fries after that comment. i'm guessing that won't be catsup on 'em.
just a friendly heads up.

[lori]

Can you imagine Obama referring to a man as
'whining' as he did Sen Clinton? The only acceptable 'ism' is sexism

[sparky]

Neither Quayle nor Cheney were running for office at the time. Neither incident was manipulated. Quayle is on video telling the boy he spelled the word wrong.
Someone actually got shot by Cheney and he actually waited a couple of days before reporting it.

Dean's scream was a manipulation of the media..

[Andrew]

Dean wasn't done in by the scream. That itself is probably a media fabrication. He never had the kind of die hard support Obama has now. His campaign was losing momentum before the scream. They like to say that scream closed the deal but there's no way of knowing if it realy mattered at all.

[joanie]

The scream was simply the punctuation on a failed attempt. The failure can be put at the feet of the Democratic National Committee as far as I know which put money and people on the ground for Kerry at the last minute.

Don't you people know the parties run the whole thing? I mean where have you been? Didn't you notice the shenanigans disenfranchising people because they moved up their primaries? Get out of the closets people.

And I have never been for Hillary because she is too far right for me. But, I made my decision based on her stand on the issues.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about her terribly run campaign. She did what she thought she had to do knowing the kind of right-wing machine she was up against.

Have none of you any insight at all?

As for healing? Screw that. I want him to get things done. If he doesn't do that, he'll be a failed President as far as I'm concerned. And we'll be no better off than we are now.

Damn. I still think you're all sexist.

And, whats up, the only one you're fooling is yourself.

[joanie]

Oh, and chucks isn't for Obama because he doesn't he's against education and health care for kids.

He'd rather vacation in Latin America than take care of kids in America.

[joanie]

Clarification: chucks doesn't want to give kids education or health care. Liberals do.

So. he's voting for war instead.

[Andrew]

I agree about the DNC, I have no idea why they punished those states by disenfranchising them entirely. They're hurting the Democrat voters of those states over something a some party leaders decided to do. That's a thoroughly undemocratic response to the problem.

[wutitz]

When Quayle ran for pres, 'potato' was constantly mentioned. I saw him interviewed by Joyce Taylor and I'll never forget that she actually spent a question on the ''potato' incident. He took it like a man, as he had no doubt been counseled by handlers, but you could see that he was thinking 'WTF, ask me about the economy, foreign policy, anything--not freaking 'potoato.'

Cheney was not running, but already in office, and there is political capital to consider. The Seattle Times ran 13 in-depth stories on the incident. This was a recreational accident. If John Kerry had run into somebody skiing, there would have been a paragraph on page A-22.

It is hard to prove that the coverage of the scream was what did in Dean, but as I remember the timing could not have been any more persuasive. He was riding high, then then came the scream. And with every day of coverage he seemed to lose ground and respect.

'Potato' and the scream should not have even made national news, much less gotten ongoing coverage. The hunting accident should have been a one day story.

[PugetSound]

joanie
you ascribe soooo much power to karl rove or repubs and not enough responsibility to the democratic candidates. repubs are having enough trouble with their own primary. you really think that mccain was their first choice?
stop crying about gender. you can't have it both ways. if you are going to enter the field you can't then ask to be treated different cause your a woman.
hillary ran the campaign she did cause she wanted to. she didn't spend $10 million on cronies like mark penn because of evil republicans. she made her choices.
turned out to be bad choices.
obama made better choices.
ergo he is going to win absent a last minute move by the movers/shakers of the dem party. if that occurs will the story line be, 'why can't a black man get a fair shake?' either way the repubs will have a field day with that.
its distasteful for her supporters to cry foul cause she is a woman. the pity move is a desperate one and really demonstrates that she is about to lose...and knows it.
in the democratic primaries people are turning to obama and away from hillary for good reason.

that reason is they want to move forward and not back to the 90's.

[joanie]

He took it like a man,

As opposed to "like a woman?"

No sexism here.

Putsie, go read Chalmers Johnson and get some ejakashun.

[wutitiz]

OK Joanie, this time you have a point. 'Took it like a man' is a dumb expression and bad writing. Maybe I should have said 'he took it in stride.'

But if that's the only criticism of my post, maybe I am making progress w/ you.

[Tommy008]

Anyone who claims Dean's scream was a product of microphone tricks is dreaming or in severe denial. Webb used to use that phony argument. I don't care if they zoomed in on his voice or not, the man sounded like a raging, out of control madman, a product of the frenetic tone, quality and timbre of his voice not relative volume compared to the crowd. He was freaking out over losing what the fawning media had conditioned him to believe was basically his birthright and a sure thing.

[dingle]

Dean had just come in 3rd! in Iowa, after the media had for months predicted he was going to be an unprecedented big winner. They loved him, and had touted him like they are Obama. They just liked his story, and hoped there was going to be some kind of new politics which would make their job more interesting. In the end it was a fairy tale invented by them. Hope this isn't the case with Obama. Even with all the lets just get along, I doubt politics will change.