• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    riverdaughter on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Propertius on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Ga6thDem on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Propertius on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Propertius on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Propertius on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    riverdaughter on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    William on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    William on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    riverdaughter on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    jmac on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Seagrl on Engrossment
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Engrossment
    Kathleen A Wynne on Engrossment
    William on Engrossment
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    September 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « Aug   Oct »
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The NYTimes Reveals More Than It Means
      Watch this video. It’s only 39 seconds. It’s worth it. What’s interesting to me about this video is NOT what Bernie says, it’s the reaction. It’s how genuinely uncomfortable the people interviewing him (The NYTimes editors) are. They really think he’s saying something terrible. Something awkward. Something embarrassing. What is he saying? “I ignore the […] […]
  • Top Posts

Same planet, different worlds

F**@#$^%%!!


Rebecca Traister comes clean two years too late:

In 50 years it could be a magnificent miniseries or something. What are some examples of big stories that people either don’t remember or weren’t even aware of at the time?

Here’s a thing that I didn’t know at the time. When Hillary won New Hampshire, she became the first woman in American history to win a primary. I mean, I sort of knew that, of course, what she was doing was historic. But this was a massive thing, a change in 220 years of presidential history. I didn’t know, and it was my job to know.

And I went back and looked at the New York Times article that sort of summed up the events the next day: Hillary Clinton and McCain win New Hampshire. The article goes into great detail about her crying and all that. But it doesn’t mention that this was the first time in American history that a woman had won a presidential primary.

There were lots of smaller things, too. When I tell people about the NPR producer who compared Hillary to Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction,” people would say “What?! Somebody said that?!”

[…]

A lot of the misogyny, as well as the racism. A lot of that stuff on television, because there were so many channels going at the same time, and we were all struggling to keep up, we missed so many of the things that were being said.

[…]

I actually assumed that anti-Hillary misogyny would take the form that it did in the beginning, the Hillary nutcrackers and the “two fat thighs and a left wing” jokes. This loutish, mostly right wing anti-Hillary spew that we have gotten for decades.

The thing that had a radicalizing impact on me began after [Hillary lost in] Iowa. Because there was this pile-on, and to me it was mind-bending. It was coming often from people on the left. It was like something they had been keeping inside as they bit their tongues and covered this woman who had the gall to be the front-runner and the “inevitable” candidate, which was the word that they threw out there. And finally she had shown weakness, and they were just going nuts.

I wrote a piece for Salon about how, despite the fact that I was not a Hillary supporter, had I lived in New Hampshire I would have voted for her that week, because I was so pissed off. I didn’t know it at the time, but Rachel Maddow said something very similar about feeling like she wanted to defend her on air. There was a video made by Dana Milbank at the Washington Post, just laughing, sneering at Hillary for giving a rally where she answered all the voters’ questions and it went on for a long time. Showing these voters yawning and saying, “Whoa, she’s such a snooze.” I began to see in this very active, palpable way how she was being talked about as Tracy Flick, or Margaret from Dennis the Menace, or Hermione Granger — you know, the know it all girl. And that’s when I began to switch.

[…]

Well I was no fan of Hillary going in. For a long time, prior to her campaign, my feelings were negligible. In fact, I felt a kind of embarrassment that women were expected to have such strong feelings about Hillary. I admired her from a distance, but politically I had less and less in common with her as she moved to the center.

I was one of those few, proud, now deeply embarrassed John Edwards supporters. So when it came to super Tuesday I had to choose between her and Obama, about whom I felt roughly equivalent. I wound up almost flipping a coin and voting for Hillary, but I was still completely ambivalent about her.

Eventually I became a lot more aware of the ways in which not only Hillary but also her supporters were being talked about. I became increasingly sensitive to the scorn directed at her, and it built and built as she continued to fight, and it drove me nuts. Because I thought her continuing to fight was awesome and hilarious. I thought it was completely redefining how we view women and our expectations for them in public and political life. She would not comply. She would not give in. She would not do what the pundits wanted her to do, what her opponents wanted her to do, what reporters were insisting that she do, what everyone was telling her was the smart thing to do or, in one case, the classy thing to do. She just kept going.

But the more she did that, the more anger — biting anger — I began to see, both in the media and amongst the people I knew, and amongst Obama supporters, and that was what began to radicalize me in my support for Clinton, so that by the end I was an ardent Hillary supporter. That does not mean that I did not still find fault with her. I did, and I do. And there were a lot of terrible missteps she made during that campaign. But I was a devoted Hillary supporter by the end, so much so that I, with much humiliation, actually wound up crying after she conceded. I was in the [National Building Museum covering the story for Salon], and I had to run out of the press area, and I was trying to find a place behind a column, and I’m, like, choking out sobs, and I realize I’m standing next to Matt Drudge.

Except for the “terrible missteps” that’s pretty much how I saw it at the time, and still do. If you think everyone saw it the same way as us, think again. From the comments at Salon:

Ugh, seriously?

Hillary’s supporters spent the entire campaign season after Iowa complaining that anyone and everyone who won’t vote for her is actually not voting for her because she’s a woman. Don’t say “That didn’t happen”, because I, as an Obama supporter who thought Hillary was ok and would be a good president, got that thrown in my face continuously from January to June. Meanwhile, the Obama camp got a ton of racism thrown their way (often from the Hillary camp itself!) and let most of it go unless it was some serious shit. Guess which one won? The one whose campaign slogan wasn’t “You’re getting in the way of a historical moment, Asshole”.

I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of people who didn’t vote for her for being a woman. I’m not saying there weren’t a LOT of people on the 24 hour news stations making fun of her for being a woman. I’m saying there’s a lot of us Democrats who didn’t vote for her because she wasn’t the best of the two choices given to us. Get over it.
—bffoley

Yeppers, we even started our own blogs so we could host virtual cross-burnings while throwing bogus accusations of sexism into the faces of those poor, mistreated Obama supporters.



(h/t Susie Madrak)

86 Responses

  1. “A lot of the misogyny, as well as the racism.”

    Am I the only one who missed the racism part? I saw a lot of race baiting though.

    • There was racism on the freeperville side of things, but racism, was as it should be, taboo in the American media. The Imus situation and the market response to it had primed the press to understand that.

      There was a lot of race baiting though…and there is still a lot of xenophobic undercurrents that go on in the media.

  2. When Hillary won New Hampshire, she became the first woman in American history to win a primary

    And who says the national media isn’t sharp? Who did she think it was, Minnie Mouse?

  3. I’m saying there’s a lot of us Democrats who didn’t vote for her because she wasn’t the best of the two choices given to us.

    How’s that working out for you? *points and laughs*

    Where is this coming from, anyway? Is anyone apologizing? Saying they were wrong to support an empty suit and to race bait? It wouldn’t do any good, because we all still have to suffer the consequences of their stupidity, but it would at least capture my interest.

    • If anyone can explain how O was in any way, shape, or form “better,” without using the word “cankles,” they’ll receive a very special prize.

      • For the record, I don’t see what is so deformed about Hillary’s ankles. They seem perfectly normal to me. Obviously, since she is smart and fairly attractive they had to find something wrong with her, but mutant ankles? Is that the best they can do?

        • I’m not even sure what makes a “very special ankle.” We need to convene a symposium on this important topic with Bernstein, Madame Recamier, and that loon from yesterday.

          • Let’s get to our political analysts in the Situation Room to discuss this very important issue. Roland Martin. Hillary’s ankles. What’s your take?

          • I want to see Roland’s ankles! I want to see Carl’s ankles! There’s too much beauty being hidden under a bushel in the political world. Take the sock off! Take the sock off!

          • Mmmmmm… Carl Bernstein. Now there’s a hottie if I ever saw one. I bet he is cologned in the faint scent of unwashed old man’s underwear and farts. *fans self*

          • Lol But you know, looking at my own ankles, I think they might lack that certain something of ankle-y specialness. Apart from foot binding or removing the bone, is there anything I can do to solve my problem? Is there like, boot camp for ankles?

          • You should put your ankles on a liquid diet and wear dumbbells around them. That is what a feminist looks like.

          • I think there is a flirty girl fitness INSANE ankle burning workout by Jillian Michaels you can try, called P90anklebang: give your man sexy ankles.

          • Thanks, girls! With your help, I am halfway to having my delegates stripped and being denied a floor fight! I would thank you publicly, if only I were allowed to speak! I’ll thank you through the power of interpretative dance instead!

          • ooh that’s good… dance until you break your ankles… maybe then they will atrophy and become acceptable? Nothing says woman in control like muscle atrophy.

          • Damn, I did not think of that. I would not want to develop unfeminine ankle muscles. Perhaps gender-appropriate traction is the one medical procedure actually covered by Obamacare? Does anyone have Bart Stupak on speeddial?

          • Ahahahaha you guys crack me up!

          • “You should wear dumbbells around [your ankles]”–Wonk

            Aren’t Obots a little large to strap to one’s ankles? 😉

    • Whenever someone pulls out the “best person for the job” b.s. I always want to say:

      BASED ON WHAT?????

      They never have an answer, because there isn’t one.

      • Go read his website, you’ll find all your answers there. LOL

      • Based on having a penis. The big lesson from 2008 is that a woman with talent, brains, ability and one helluva work ethic can not be elected to the presidency. Never mind that women make up a little over half of the population. That half of the population will never include someone with “what it takes” to be president. However, a bi-racial man can be a “historical” president because he does. Never mind that he doesn’t have the experience, the ability or a kick-ass work ethic. None of that matters. Just as long as he’s got a penis. (Apparently, he doesn’t even need to have balls!)

    • Oh yea, they were out chanting “she’s voted for the war
      185 times, and he opposed the war, and never voted once. ” Next thing you know all the big bucks who voted for the war where on stage and standing by their man, and Hillary was turned into garbage right their in front of my eyes.

      Furious was I, and remain so.

  4. If Hillary would have pointed out the significance of that primary win….Ms Rebecca and millions of Obots would have been upset for Hillary being rude to Obama or some other nonsense.

    While there is a lot of things that I agree with in that text…it is all superficial. Her whole write up essentially points to the fact she wasn’t listening to Hillary at the debates or researching the differences.

    But rather she was fully involved with the media’s version of Hillary.

    Honey…..form your own damn opinion!!!

    Arrgh!

    • They would have gone ballistic if she’d to make as big a deal as it deserved out of the historic milestone of being the first woman in history to win a primary (no offense, to Shirley, as awesome as she is that basically sounds like a straw poll and Rebecca was NOT thinking about that, she’s just an idiot 😉 No doubt about it. Hell, they are so freaking insane, they actually got upset when Hillary, classily paid tribute to the historic nature of OBAMA’s candidacy. “That rac ist, she’s drawing attention to the fact that he’s black!” And no, I am not even joking about that.

      • Yup…I remember that too. As if the entire world hadn’t noticed yet so it clearly it couldn’t be as it was intended…a tribute.

        She ran one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. From the very start she ran a general election platform in the primary. How many times has some Dem politician got themselves into hot water changing their stances for the general? Every one of them. She set hers up in way that she wouldn’t have to abandon her stances and be called a flip-flopper by Reps. Deadly to Kerry and still running with his label all these years later.

        And despite all the media spin, she ran one of the cleanest campaigns too. Context matters and the media proved over and over again what damage they could inflict without cause. Since most of the Obots wouldn’t check the context.

        They really are freaking insane.

        • That’s one of the things that I can’t stand the most about Obama. If you’re going to get down and dirty, I don’t like it, especially in a primary, but at least own it. But all of the projection, where she’d just stand there are get castigated for things HE was doing just got to be too much. Mommy made Obama go negative when all he wanted to do was run unopposed and, thus, cleanly. Damn her! He couldn’t pull this $&@$ on her if she’d just quit, already!

          • Couldn’t have said it better..

            And really if Obama geniunely had the better ideas then why bother with getting down and dirty?

          • That was what really killed me – Obama ran the nastiest campaign I ever saw but they kept accusing Hillary of running a dirty campaign

          • You hit the nail on the head…”mommy made him go negative…”

            IMO, the reason most males don’t want to step up and stop sexism in our society is because “who will they have to blame for every damn thing that they do wrong, if women aren’t the convenient scapegoat?” This would mean that they would actually have to take responsibility for their own actions and failures and the male psyche has been given a free ride on being held accountable for their own actions since the beginning of time.

            I’m certain the attacks on Hillary were their fear that the truth about the male inability to compete on a level playing field with women is due to their not being superior and they can’t handle the truth.

            I bet when women unite and start gaining more real power, we will see an escalation of male violence because men don’t how to deal with the real world that women have endured since the beginning of time.

            I think it will do men alot of good to start facing their own shortcomings and recognizing that they are only human and don’t need to contstantly blame women and the weather for their failures. It’s the only way they will ever mature and find the better angels of their nature. That change alone would make the world a much better place for the rest of us.

        • She beat them all, but then the RBC stole the nomination from her.

          • My Obot family had no clue about the RBC except the most shallow MSM version…those damn MI and FL voters getting what is due. Or even what was going on during the convention.

            We used to talk for hours about all these obscure articles about Bush and attacking this or that.

            With Obama they swam in kool-aid and with a bad case of CDS.

          • Yeah, the RBC decision was the under-reported story of the year.

          • I take that back – the most under-reported story of 2008 was where Obama’s money came from.

            It wasn’t from a bunch of college kids sending him their beer and weed money.

          • My dad is a weird case. He did a complete 180, from railing against DNC stupidity in screwing these voters to repeating the dumbest talking point of the day. I swear I don’t think he even watches MSNBO, he’s getting the talking points beamed directly into his brain.

          • Back then I e-mailed a (national) reporter, trying to explain to him what had actually happened in Michigan and consequently at the RBC meeting (which I, a non- reporter followed in real time, damnit! Know all about it!)

            He furiously replied that: So Obama should have been deprived of those, his, votes? Huh, huh! Wouldn’t that have been just like … North Korea ? Huh, huh!

            To this day I have no idea what- so- ever how NK got into the equation!

          • Obots say it would be unfair if Obama got no votes or delegates from Michigan, because his name wasn’t on the ballot.

            Except his name was going to be on the ballot but he had it taken off, as part of a strategy to cause Hillary embarrassment.

            Where I come from if you take your name off a ballot then you don’t get any votes.

  5. And there were a lot of terrible missteps she made during that campaign.

    The “Hillary ran a bad campaign” myth rears its ugly head.

    Hillary got MORE votes than Obama while spending LESS money. She won all the big states except Illinois – several of them by 10 points or more. She won the “swing” states like Ohio and Florida. She did that with the media and the Democratic establishment against her, and with them proclaiming Obama “unbeatable” as early as the first week of January 2008.

    All things considered, she ran an awesome campaign.

    • Yeah, and most of her “missteps” were ginned up by the minions of Hopenchange and the media, like the RFK bs or the “Crazy Bill” narrative.

      • While the media and Kool-aid bloggers covered up for Obama’s stumbles.

        • I loved how as soon as Obama gave his “Bestest Speech on Race EVAH!” they declared the whole Rev. Wright issue dead. That’s the speech where Obama said he could never disown his spiritual mentor.

          Until Old Jeremiah opened his mouth again and Obama disowned him. Then they all declared the issue dead. Again.

          And we’ve been living in an era of racial peace and harmony ever since.

          • It’s not that the press is lazy, it’s that they convince themselves they’re telling the truth when they’re not. Actually telling the truth would provoke a huge uproar among their colleagues, and who wants that? Much easier to just go along and repeat the CW as if you mean it. Who are you going to believe, Sully, your lying eyes, or all those inconvenient facts?

          • The….Throw Granny from the Train speech….ugh

          • You have to give the Obama campaign credit though, for successfully turning any opposition to or criticism of Obama into racism.

            I think what they did was morally reprehensible and politically shortsighted and certain to backfire (as it has) but they executed the plan very smoothly.

            Out of nowhere we suddenly learned that terms like “fairy tale” were racist, and that Bill Clinton was secretly a Grand Dragon of the KKK! And the media and the blogosphere nodded their heads and said “What a shame!”

            My reaction was “Are you fucking kidding me? Bill Clinton a racist? Bullshit!”

            I was a minority over at Buffoon Juice.

          • But in fairness, it would have taken about 30 seconds to find that speech of Clinton’s, not to mention a good 15 minutes to watch the whole thing. Why knock yourself out with that much work when the Obama campaign is there to feed you handy dandy pre-digested easily repeatable lies? It’s like the delegate math. Figuring that out, now we’re verging on 20 minutes, and math is hard!!!!!

          • You could almost track exactly where the Obot heard his version of lies based on what they spewed back on the subject.

            Ah…HuffPo…

            Ok….KO….

            There’s….Tweety….

          • Heh! A couple of weeks ago I wrote the US political expert at our Nat. Pub. radio (after he stated some bs about Obama’s opposition to the war while still in the Illinois Senate) exactly what you say at 5.41 am. Complete with link to video. Haven’t received a reply. Yet. Guess I won’t either, heh.

          • Yes, they did it quite well. And like you said morally reprehensive and politically shortsighted on so many levels it hurts.

            And that WTF moment about Clinton being a racist…

            “And the media and the blogosphere nodded their heads and said “What a shame!” ”

            It makes me wonder where that moment sits in their minds today. Do they really believe it now? Did they ever really believe it and had no spine to speak up? Do they just believe that Clinton redeemed himself in the passing months?

            Or can they actually make themselves take ownership of the fact that they were the ones who sucked up the lies and spewed them out without thought?

            I guess I might have to pick some family Obot brain on that front.

      • I can’t even count the number of times I heard about something in passing, say a radio or TV promo about some “gaffe” and my heart would sink. Then when I got a chance, I’d go get the details only to find it was complete and utter bs.

        • I remember people claiming “Hillary lost it” in a debate. Then I watched the debate.

          I thought “WTF? Did I miss something?”

          The same thing with WJC – they kept claiming he was going off on a reporter or something.

          A bunch of big nothing-burgers.

    • All that typing upbove and you two were on the same thoughts…lol

    • She was spot on with her messages, whereas Obama spun out confusing, and inconsistent messages. Then the media came out and said he was a high level consitutional scholar, sure enough, he was highly ed-you-con-ate-it.

  6. Good morning. It’s primaries day. The media – which previously never publicized it before the fact, has advice for voters
    http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/tabloids-throw-the-bums-out-primaries-edition/

  7. Excellent post, myiq!!!

    Dead on comments, Conflucians

    Classic repartee beginning @ littleisis, on September 14, 2010 at 1:21 am

  8. Jeez I love this blog. The sanity is wonderful.

  9. Eventually I became a lot more aware of the ways in which not only Hillary but also her supporters were being talked about. I became increasingly sensitive to the scorn directed at her, and it built and built as she continued to fight, and it drove me nuts. Because I thought her continuing to fight was awesome and hilarious. I thought it was completely redefining how we view women and our expectations for them in public and political life. She would not comply. She would not give in. She would not do what the pundits wanted her to do, what her opponents wanted her to do, what reporters were insisting that she do, what everyone was telling her was the smart thing to do or, in one case, the classy thing to do. She just kept going.

    That pretty much nails it. My admiration for her only grew as she stood strong in the face of the hostility and manipulation. She did it for women, knowing the historical and symbolic significance, and that’s when she rose to another level completely. It still surprises me how one post like this–and the inevitable idiotic Bot comment–can instantly trigger those old feelings. Idjiots. Even being proven so true does not ease that rage.

  10. The New York Fishwrap and the Washington Birdcage Liner talked Joe and Jane Sixpack into going along with Bush’s invasion of Iraq so swaying presidential elections is small potatoes.

  11. “….Here’s a thing that I didn’t know at the time. When Hillary won New Hampshire, she became the first woman in American history to win a primary. I mean, I sort of knew that, of course, what she was doing was historic. But this was a massive thing, a change in 220 years of presidential history. I didn’t know, and it was my job to know…”

    Wow. Salon? Just wowed.

  12. She mentions Rachel Maddow without noting that Maddow became a giant Obamabot. Maddow only has a show on MSNBC because she promoted Obama and bashed Hillary. When MSNBC became an Obamabot network I knew Obama was a fraud. GE would not be supporting any Democrat who was actually a liberal. Maddow and “Big Eddie” lost any claim to integrity when they made the career move to fluff Obama for GE.

  13. We gotta keep re-living this nightmare everytime some reporter admits they are stupid. In fact, I believe they all are. Especially those asskissers who suck up to whoever is in power. The meme of the reporters who kept yelling at Hillary to drop out were freaking out as her support increased every day that she stayed in the race. (we love a fighter). Something had to be done. Funny thing though, I always thought Obama’s bi-racial background was a plus for him. Instead, he became the purest negroe ever.

  14. Did Joe McCarthy give Obama that race card?

  15. The Obots race baited. They engaged in misogyny. They pretended to be “the outsiders” when they had the endorsement of Big Money and the Democratic Party establishment. To the extent that they weren’t flat out liars, they were bullies, dupes, would-be elitists, or limousine liberals driven by guilt over race, which they thought they could expiate on the cheap by voting for a psuedo African American. And they still couldn’t get over the top without last minute, back-door deals. And they relied on the crazy Democratic Party rules that award delegates on the basis of Congressional districts, and treat some districts (ie the supermajority Democrat minority districts) as “more equal” than others.

    Still, it IS true that Hillary made mis-steps in her campaign. Yes, she won more votes with less money, yes, she won the big States and so on. But, IMHO, she made at least three big mistakes. One was overlooking the caucas States. Barky was able to pick up big delegate margins in many of them because Hillary didn’t organize effectively there. Despite planning her campaign for years, if often seemed that Hillary’s campaign did not understand the way the delegates would be awarded. Sure, there was bullyiing and shenanigans in the caucases, but a big part of the problem was that Hillary did not have people on the ground. And you have to give Barky’s campaign, if not Barky himself, credit for seeing the caucases as a delegate gold mine. Her second big mistake, IMHO, was her failure to go straight for the jugular early on in the campaign. She accorded Barky way too much respect. She treated him as an equal. Her speech about the sky opening up and the light shining down should have come months earlier. And she shouldn’t have stopped there. She should have relentlessly pounded Barky’s complete lack of experience, punctured his BS “compelling life story,” exposed him as the cheap con man grifter that he actually is, and treated him as the jumped-up school boy in short pants that he actually is, was, and always will be. And Hillary’s third mistake was not locking up the superdelegates long before the campaign even began. When it finally came to the supers, it turned out that Barky had given more money to more of them than Hillary had, and had campaigned for more of them, and more vigorously, than Hillary had. Again, it turned out that Barky’s campaign had gotten the jump on her.

    I love Hillary. I worked for her campaign
    (and her husband’s). I voted for her. I defended her endlessly on the blogs. But I was mistaken when I thought that she had meticulously planned her campaign, and had left no stone unturned. She is an incredibly hard worker, infinitely more so than Barky. She is a much better person than he could ever hope to be. Much more knowledgable. Has more integrity in her much maligned ankles and cankles than he has in his whole empty Armani suit. And she was treated shabbily by a biased and misogynist media. Still, blame her, blame her campaign officials, blame whoever you like, but her campaign did miss the boat in at least the three ways that I outlined above.

    • Well, you’re right that caucus states were a gold mine for the Obama campaign. The big difference between he and Hillary, though, is that he was willing to cheat and intimidate to win. Yup — paid off big time.

      Re your second point, Hillary is a loyal Democrat and was careful to say nothing that might damage Obama for the general election should he be the candidate (and possibly should he be her VP choice). If that’s a weakness, it’s an admirable one.

      Re SD’s, well, plenty of them got harassed and intimidated to switch their allegiance to Obama. Not to mention a couple untimely deaths shortly before the convention. But it’s true Hillary may have thought her years of working with these people would count for something. Sort of like many of her supporters felt when we were unceremoniously dubbed r@cists by former close friends and fellow activists. Yeah. Live and learn.

      *****A

      • And as for the second point, it wouldn’t have worked for her. Voters react much more harshly against negativity when it’s coming from a woman. She has to walk that fine line between being tough-as-nails yet sweet, kind, non-threatening and never, ever sarcastic. Axlerod knew that damn good and well. Look at the governor’s race in MA between Mittens and Shannon O’Brien. He attacked her for weeks, and she held back on responding, looking weak. Finally, she did respond, and overnight voters all of a sudden woke up to the negativity, putting all of the blame squarely on her. Her “smirking” (yes, she was running against Mitt Freakin’ Romney) disgusted them. Her lack of respect and dismissive tone disgusted them. Now imagine you’re H being accused of condescending to the first Black man to have a shot at the nom in that crazy climate. Way too big a chance to take with so little chance of working. If she’d given up her moral authority, no one would have been brave enough to stand by her. Hard enough as it was

        • I don’t know anymore if that’s true. I suspect it’s common knowledge that would turn out to be wrong. Personally, I think she should have taken an axe to him from day one.

          • *shrugs* she was portrayed as the —– from hell for doing absolutely nothing. If she’d attacked him, she would have lost the high ground. He’s amazing at portraying himself as the victim while going for the jugular. She gained support by being the best candidate. Attacking him would have put her in the same position he was in when he started attacking Big Dawg, it makes her look like she’s self-centered and doesn’t care about the party with these scorched earth tactics. I hate that )$&@, I probably would have gone right off her, and I wouldn’t be alone, I suspect. All of her support came from being the best candidate and disgust at Obama’s tactics. If she went there, she’s at as much or more of a disadvantage, because he’d do anything he had to. You can’t do it unless you’re prepared to go all the way and match him disenfranchised voter for disadvantaged voter.

          • I mean, don’t forget, a lot of people started out as not big fans and grew to admire her over time. That way, when Obots started with all this bs and we could see it was bs, it was like, WTF are you talking about? WTF is wrong with you? So many people went from, “I can live with anyone in the race” to “Obama should be ashamed of his campaign.” But if she gets involved, it looks much murkier, it looks like politics as usual, it looks like a pox on both their houses. It even looks like how can you disillusion these wonderful kids. You can’t win playing on their turf, you can’t outRove Rove.

          • Hillary was damned if she did, damned if she didn’t.

            She played clean and won, but they stole it from her.

  16. Obama poured more resources into the caucas States. That gave him a legitimate advantage, even if it is also meant that he could use that advantage illegitmately.

    Politics isn’t beanbags. If you follow Marquis of Queensbury rules when your opponent fights like a street thug, then you will lose. And Barky had a track record in this regard: opponents forced off the ballot, sealed divorce records being made public not once but twice, and so on. So she should have seen it coming. Also, Hillary’s admirable methods extended so far as to not even effectively counter the Barky campaign meme that SHE was the one fighting dirty, when in reality it was Barky, his nasty wife, his campaign, and his supporters who were the filth mongrels.

    Finally, go back and check the facts, Barky had given more time and money to the superdelegates than Hillary had. That shows advance planning. As does the caucas emphasis.Yes, he used intimidation too (although I’m not going to buy into conspiracy theories about untimely deaths). But you can’t just wish away inconvenient facts.

    Again, I love Hillary. Barky did lie, cheat and steal. Still, IMHO, is it is wrong to say that Hillary made no mistakes in her campaign. Perhaps she chose the wrong people to put in charge, but the ultimate responsibility for those mistakes is still hers.

    • Politics ain’t beanbag is really the point I agree with most, though I don’t disagree with any of your points. I’m sorry it is this way but, in our political culture, ‘may the best man win’ is pure crap. Most times it’s the shameless and the ruthless who come out on top.

    • I agree with everything Adrienne and Seriously has already said above – with their usual admirable eloquence.

      As for the caucus, Democratic! voters arrived unarmed not expecting a fight! and was met by thugs who brought not only knives and guns but 2x4s too. How could you be prepaired for that?

      As for the Super Delegates, the Donna/DNC rules changed all the time to best accomodate the chosen candidate. I don’t see how you could have prepared for (or fought back against) that either.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: