Well Said

C'mon, modern.

You were the one who accused Obama of playing the race card because "one" supporter on TV the night of the NH primary tried to explain the difference between the polling before the primary (showing Obama would win big) with the results (where HRC won) as "the Bradley effect." He was trying to explain the result.  Your knee jerked and called it "playing the race card."  Huh?

Then, Bill Clinton diminishes Obama's big win in SC by saying "Jesse Jackson won there too."  But you say nothing, or "that's politics." That was A-OK and not playing the race card?

Racism is alive and well in Appalachia; check out this video of "loyal" Democratic Hillary supporters in West Virginia:

http://www.livesteez.com/videos/watch/nvYkHm9

That is disgusting. 

True, some had said several months ago that they would abandon the Democratic Party if Obama wasn't the nominee, but I and other Obama supporters ON THIS BOARD said we would vote for HRC if she were the nominee, even though we wouldn't be happy about it.  Saber rattling on blogs does not rise to the level of going national on Fox News to vent their grievances.

You're tilting at windmills in a pent-up, blind rage.  But that's OK, politics can do that to the best of us.

And yes, I will condemn ANY group of Dems, men or women, who say they will support John McBush over Barack Obama simply because of some perceived disrespect they get from the media or from some Obama supporters.  To them I say: grow up; or, as HRC said "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I saw the O'Reilly interview, and I was surprised that even Billo couldn't understand their misplaced outrage.

First, it wasn't one supporter, it was a campaign surrogate who has repeatedly since been on MSNBC on behalf of the Obama campaign. Second, it wasn't just him it was other Obama supporters including DailyKos.

Saying Obama lost N.H. because of the "Bradley Effect" is saying he lost because of racism.  If that's not playing the race card, what is.

When did you condemn Jerid or Russo when they wrote that people would abandon the Democratic Party or support McCain instead if Hillary was on the nominee?  Apparently, sitting on your hands.

Please link where Tim Russo and Jerid said they'd support Hillary as the nominee here or anywhere else. Or JeanLR.  I just checked Jean's article "Is Clinton any better than McCain?"  Yeah, still no condemnation from you or any other Obama supporter for that statement.

"Saber rattling on blogs does not rise to the level of going national on Fox News to vent their grievances."  Yeah, because there's never been a time that any Obama supporter has talked about African-Americans and young voters would abandon the party if Hillary were the nominee.  Are you really that clueless?

I'm tilting at the pure hypocracy and phoneyness of Obama supporters who are now suddenly shocked that after repeatedly calling Hillary a bitch and her supporters racists that some would consider saying "Fuck you" rather than come together to support the crowd that treated us as "phony Democrats" and accused us of being Republicans because we dared to support Clinton.  Those of us who were accused of "shilling" every time we dared speak our mouth to question the wisdom of going with Obama.

It wasn't just a handful.  It was systematic.  Look at what this site was like during our State's primary.  Check out DailyKos at any point.  Or any other pro-Obama blog in this State during that time.

If you voted for Hillary in large numbers, it's because you're a racist.  That was the mantra.

And now I'm supposed to be shocked that some of us aren't ready to just put that aside?  Now who's shilling?

I can't answer for Jerid or Russo, but they weren't pulling that out of their ass.  The sentiments they were talking about were just that, sentiments.  To my knowledge, no Obama supporter went on Faux Nooze claiming they were leading a group to support the Republicans in November if Obama wasn't nominated, and certainly no member of the Franklin County Democratic Executive Committee supporting Obama was expressing such sentiments on television.

With regard to the race card, the polls before the primary showed Obama would win NH.  the polls were wrong.

An Obama surrogate asked: "why were the polls wrong?"  He attributed it to the Bradley effect. A phenomenon that has been true in American politics when polls don't match the final results with regard to an African-American candidate.  why do you say HRC won NH when polls said she would lose?  Because she cried?

So is the rest of your rant saying racism is "dead in Ohio?"

Please.

Try looking at the video from WVA again, I'd bet you'll probably hear the same type of senrtiments expressed in Butler County.

Sad.

And if you don't pick up on anything else (and I know it wasn't on the bar exam), please, there is no "a" in hypocrisy.

Listen to yourself, if you can even hear yourself with all the dodging. You didn't address any of the points I raised. I asked you to back up your claims and your best defense is that you can't answer for Jerid and Russo (yet, earlier, you claim that everyone here said they would have supported Clinton had she won.)

You're just spinning, now.  Obama's surrogates (including DailyKos) didn't mention the "Bradley Effect" to answer a question, but to present the answer.  He was freaking introduced by Chris Matthews as saying was race a factor to Obama's surprise loss.  His whole purpose of being on MSNBC after N.H. was to push the Bradley effect theory.  It was WHY he was booked in the first place.

Maybe, as Keith Olbermann pointed out, the polls weren't wrong but the results were incorrectly analyzed.

I didn't say anything about racism being dead or any such nonsense.  Now, your trying to avoid the questions you can't answer and trying to counter attack for things I've never said.

Why does everything have to be an absolute with you?  My point is that after hearing Obama supporters screech about how anytime he doesn't do well it's because racism (Ohio, SEO) it tends to breed resentment in Clinton supporters to the point that some aren't going to support Obama.

Who cares what channel they were on?  The fact is that Obama supporters EVERYWHERE on TV, in the papers, on the blogs EVERYWHERE were threatening a massive boycott in November if Clinton won the nomination.

For you to sit there and pretend it didn't happen is delusional.

The truth is that this very blog had Obama supporters who pushed the boycott threat story in a quest to get people to support Obama in Ohio, and when that didn't work, then we had to listen to how the only way Clinton could have possibly won is because of racism.  And some of us who supported Clinton were insulted by that and found it disgusting.

Why not actually read the article and check the author Robert Scheer's credentials, I think he's an apt critic.

I did read your ranting forum post, and that's not the point. The point is that while you and other Obama supporters have spent tremendous energy lying about Hillary Clinton and saying she's no better than McCain and then acting shocked and disgusted when her supporters say then they might as well support McCain is ironic.

I'm not talking about what Robert Scheer said.  I'm talking about what you and other Obama supporters have said. And how I can understand such overcharged rhetoric makes it very difficult for some Clinton supporters to let bygones be bygones and now support Obama.

Disgusting.  

Where was this uberfeminist when her serial-sexual-harrasser husband was preying on subordinates?

This 40 something woman is sick and tired of women crying about being victimized because someone called them "sweetie" or crying  because someone gave them a Hillary nutcracker.  For God's sake!

Hillary is a professional, intelligent, accomplished woman who has surrounded herself with the most comtemptable assholes ever.  She is being defeated because she is part of something bigger in the party and in our government and that thing she has been a part of has brought us this WAR and this ECONOMY and if one more person carries on about the wonderful Clinton years I'm going to BARF.

Largely due to Hillary's utter and total FUCK UP with healthcare, we not only have been unable to even discuss the deteriorating situation without her failure coming up and the situation is now absolutely critical. 

Her failed effort, coupled with the fact that her husband was elected without a mandate- he won because Ross Perot took 20% of the vote away from Bill Clinton's best friend, George HW Bush- these things resulted in the LOSS OF THE CONGRESS TO REPUBLICAN CONTROL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 40 FREAKIN YEARS.

Woman crying about being victimized by sexism really should get out more and see what victimization is really about, ask any of Bill's victims! 

Hillary Clinton is being dragged down by the stone, to paraphrase the great Pink Floyd song, "Dogs".  She is weighted down by HER OWN ACTIONS AND HER OWN INACTIONS.  She chose the company she's keeping and that's what being a feminist is about.  it's about ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. 

It's not about crying in New Hampsire and then claiming to be tough in Texas and then claiming to be a working class hero while your 100million dollar husband does your dirty work and then try to claim it's not your fault what he says then claiming that you should be credited with all the great stuff that happened during his Presidency and then trying to say anything bad was the work of a right-wing conspiracy.

Hillary Clinton was tough enough to vote for George Bush's war and to threaten the people of Iran with "obliteration".  I think she can defend herself without crying that it's all about sexism.  Her supporters should be as brave as she is.

Hillary Clinton is being beaten by a better candidate. Period.

First off, I used the words sexism and racism because they are in previous comments in this post and because the blog entry is cross-posted to another site that mentioned that. I wish I hadn't because what you did was see the word sexism and frame my entire post around that. My post is about the results to this nomination process, not sexism. The basis of a 'sexism' argument for voting against Obama is ridiculous, and I would hope you could agree with that... but that wasn't even what I was saying.

Everyone needs to throw away all of this nonsense (whatever it may be) and look at reality. I am shocked and amazed that so many of us do not want to deal with the results!

Obama will go into the convention with the most pledged delegates (not talking about superdelegates). There is no way to refute this. Hillary would have blow Obama out of the water in every remaining contest to pull even. Something to the tune of 69-31% the last time I ran the CNN election tool, and its not going to happen.

The bottom line is that I have said that I would not vote, and quite frankly would be ashamed to identify myself as a Democrat, if superdelegates overturn the pledged delegates. It has been abundantly clear for some time that Obama was going to head to the convention with the most pledged delegates. It would be a rerun of 2000, and it would be our own party further disenfranchising our own voters. (Which has already reared its ugly head in MI and FL, but as I said earlier Clinton wholly agreed to it)

Do you not see how that is different from a Clinton supporter who says they won't vote for Obama because their candidate, who has been losing this entire race, won't win the nomination? Maybe you think he isn't qualified, or maybe he can't win, but 800 superdelegates should not be the ones to decide, voters should.

Look you may have excuses for Hillary losing, you may not, all I am saying is look at the results. They are clear: Obama is going to win this. I am not saying that Obama deserves lock-step support, but it would be a shame for Clinton supporters to vote against someone with the same policy to elect someone who shares nearly none of the policy. That is shocking. It is also amazing(ly hard) to believe that Democrat vs. Democrat (within just Democratic voters) results somehow magically equal what Democrat vs. Republican results (with all registered voters) would be.

You don't like Obama, but please stop making up crap to prove your "point."

"Mush" to who?  Obama was against the war from Day One.  Hillary blindly followed Bush in order to prove her toughness, and didn't even bother reading the intelligence report before casting her biggest mistake in her career.  The left has strongly embraced Barack and NOT Hillary because of their consistent stances with regard to the Iraq War.

Take out your earplugs and listen to him sometime, it may be enlightening.  Better yet, read his books.  He lays it all out how he thinks, where he came from, everything.

Any lawyer, which Hillary is, will tell you that MI and FL don't count; never did; never will.  I know people in MI who blew off voting because it wouldn't count.  Hillary was against counting the votes in both states until she needed them to pretend she's ahead in something.  She would have been  "the elected officals candidate, when she courted the Spers, but now that they aren't flocking to her, they don't count.

Guess what.  Millions of us support Barack Obama.

Maybe that's why Hillary lost: she had thousands of people, Obama has millions.

...to point out to me where I said people say sexism was the reason Hillary lost. I put it in a list of things, all of them pointing to the absurdity of using any one of them as an excuse for OBAMA or CLINTON. Quite frankly my post really had nothing to do with sexism, it had to do with the results of the nomination process.

Nor did I demand lock-step support, but there is this old saying, "shooting yourself in the foot." Voting for McCain over Obama, as a Democrat, would be more like shooting yourself in the foot and everyone else's foot.

There is also nothing ridiculous with leaving a party that is OK with overturning the results of how people voted. Luckily, it appears the majority of superdelegates see how bad of an idea that would be. Are you truly ok with doing that?

I will not be voting for McCain. I will be writing in Hillary Clinton on my ballot again. Obama supporters overlook the fact that they (DNC) are trying to deny ALL of the people their voice. Two States in this Union are being denied their Constitutional right to vote. If they do not count the votes of Fl and Mi this will be a stolen election. I do not care about the DNC rules of Delegates. I care about EACH INDIVIDUAL VOTE. Hillary will be ahead if she isn't already.

Don't try and use the Roe V. Wade and Supreme Court justices argument on me, it will not work. As far as I am concerned the young voters have no idea what they are voting for. Ask them.  McCain is moving closer to the middle were the majority of the American public live.

Denise, you're forgetting that there is no right to vote in primaries. It was only recently that primary votes were even held, prior to that they were decided in the proverbial "smoke filled back room."

FL & MI can indeed be stripped of their delegates because THEY BROKE THE RULES. And both Hillary and Obama signed a pledge not to campaign in those states because THEY BROKE THE RULES. The rules are the rules. You break them, you pay the price.

I'd also like to point out that this isn't just the DNC. The RNC is also penalizing FL & MI for breaking the rules. However, since McCain has the nomination well in hand, it isn't really an issue on that side. But don't blame this on the DNC. The RNC is doing the same thing.  The two parties agreed to penalize states that moved their primaries before Feb 5th. 

Oh, and if you think McCain is closer to the middle, you haven't been paying very much attention to him recently.