Don't Say I Didn't Warn You, But.....
Submitted by reggiesmom on June 10, 2008 - 3:27pm.
2008 Election | Barack Obama | Democratic politics | Hillary Clinton
I wish I could take credit for authoring this piece. Afterall, Susan Reimer has written down every thought that has crossed my mind over the past few days. But even though I didn't take the time to write anything down, here it is......in black & white......spelled out in language simple enough for even the most unsophisticated voter to comprehend. I just wish somebody had clued in the DNC before they decided which candidate was the best choice for America.
I can only hope that both Susan Reimer & I along with 18,000,000 others are wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Voters may exit with Clinton
Susan Reimer
June 10, 2008
The feminist-baiting males in my life are asking, with barely contained glee, if I am sad that Hillary Clinton didn't win the Democratic nomination for president. They assume I wanted a female nominee.
No, I tell them, I wanted an electable nominee. And she was it.
It seems strange to say this now. I used to think that Hillary was the most unelectable of the Democratic contenders. Too much Clinton baggage, even for me.
I didn't know if I could hold my breath for four years, waiting for Bill to misbehave. (It turns out, I didn't have to wait nearly that long. His meltdowns during the campaign were not bimbo eruptions, but they were bad enough.)
I told people last fall that her nomination was an inevitability. "Put this one in the win column and go on vacation," I said. "The Clintons have the money connections and the campaign machinery to outspend and grind up anybody in their path. She is unbeatable."
Turns out, I was wrong about that, too. She started having money troubles midway through her campaign. And, if you believe an analysis in The New York Times last week, it was the superdelegates (aka the Democratic machinery) who failed her, refusing to commit or changing sides when they were the only ones who could tip the delegate count in her favor.
This means we will not only not have a female president, I am afraid we won't have a Democratic president, either. And after eight years of George Bush, this hardly seems possible. (That's the other thing I said last fall. "The local dog-catcher can beat a Republican, any Republican.")
As pleasing and smart and evocative as Barack Obama is, there are hard-core Democrats out there in working-class America who simply will not vote for a black man.
They won't vote for a Republican, either.
So they will stay home.
Trust me. This has been my instinct all along, and I have friends who confess to me that their small-town, working-class relatives liked Hillary's small-town, working-class pitch well enough to swallow the idea of a female president. She started to seem like a girlfriend to these older voters, especially older women.
But, despite the fact that he has a white mother, Barack Obama will never look like anything to them but a black man. And, whatever feminist labels Hillary had on her luggage, she was not a black man, and they cannot imagine voting for a black man.
There were questions during the primary process about whether voters were telling the truth when they said Obama's race was not a factor in their voting decisions. There were whispers that voters were saying out loud what they knew to be politically correct but, in the privacy of the voting booth, they would reveal their true feelings and those feelings were tinged with racism.
That's not what I am talking about here.
I am talking about voters who are not afraid to say that they will not vote for a black man and are surprised you even asked. Rather than hold their noses and vote for a Republican, they won't vote at all.
And I am talking about women who fought the early feminist wars, who were passed over for some younger guy early in their careers, who wanted to finally even the score with a female president.
For these women, the Hillary-Barack drama is deja vu all over again and they may stay home, too, out of angry frustration.
What I fear is that this refusal to vote will be the difference in states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Tennessee, states Hillary won, states Obama has to carry if he is going to beat John McCain. That too many of the 18 million people who voted for Hillary will not vote at all.
So, no. I am not angry that a woman will not be president, although I don't think a contender as strong as Hillary will come along again in my lifetime.
I am angry that a Democrat might not be president.
I just hope I am wrong about this, too.
###
She could be picking up on faux unrest that is being sown by the Republican and the media. I do think it exists to some degree, it always does so soon after a close contest. But I am wary of them using it and preventing healing within the Democratic party.
I refuse to believe that intelligent progressive women and Democrats would vote against their best interests like lemming Republicans without having been manipulated into such a movement. There is to much at stake.
I'm a member of a 400+ group of Hillary fans, and many, many of them are either not voting in November or voting for McCain. The driving forces are the media bias against Clinton, which has been shown empirically, the arbitrary shifting of delegate votes in the Michigan case, rampant sexism which several pundits have noted, and a general distrust of the surviving candidate. You wouldn't believe the vitriol.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
much the same thing. I don't think the press has to go overboard to jeopardize his chances in November. I personally know a rather large number of Hillary supporters who are digging in their heals and have said they will not cast a vote for BO. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with his race!
So really, race is only 1 factor in why Senator Obama may not be a shoe in for POTUS.
It might do him well to keep in mind: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!"
"Choose our candidate because we won't vote for yours!"
Didn't we all vote for Kerry when Clark lost in 2004?
Now Hillary supporters will hold their breath until their faces turn blue? The race is over, she did well but lost. We're not talking about Florida 2000 here.
And before you denounce me as an Obama supporter (why is that an epithet to some people around here) let me say again that I was totally neutral in the race, but I will accept the party's decision. I would have accepted Hillary just as readily and happily.
Well either did mine. None of my preferred primary candidates ever win. Why do a decent amount of these boomers feel more entitled to having things go their way more than the rest of us?!
Annoying isn't it?
but I think it is just their huge numbers. They are used to dominating the demographic and having the whole society seem to revolve around them. It's also true that most of the "me" generation grew up in affluence they never earned, while the "greatest" generation before them had to struggle through the Great Depression and World War II. OTOH, the "greatest" generation gave us the Vietnam war and then made the boomers fight it.
since McCain has such a solid history of standing up for gender equality issues & a woman's right to choose 'n all.
Seriously folks please, take a deep breath. In 2004 I couldn't stand that Kerry won the nomination. Hell, I couldn't stand him in the primaries...I thought he was the biggest windbag of 'em all.
Then both Dean & Clark came out strongly endorsing Kerry....it's called the greater good.
Please don't let your post primary emotions override logical policy voting. Rush Limbaugh basks on his show everyday right now about the possiblity of HRC supporters voting repub. It's what they want, whether it's a 2008 primary season, 2016, or whenever! It's what repubs always want, paralyzing division in the liberal ranks that leads to rethug rule.
the Dems TOTALLY played into their hands with the recent rules decision. Maybe it was the right choice, the best choice - who knows. But to Hillary supporters, to disaffected Democrats hanging on by a thread - it was a last straw.
Here are only a fraction of the comments I've heard in the last week:
"The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. Worse, because they should know better."
"I guess the will of the people doesn't mean squat."
"Well, since they can do without my vote in the primary, guess they can do without in the General. And in every other election." (Michigan voter)
"I will never again support, send money to, or vote for a candidate from such a corrupt party."
"Guess I'm now an Independent." (Heard over 30 times, in person, in email or on the air).
Whatever the rules said, this decision has been deeply infuriating to many Clinton supporters, as well as many Democrats who had not yet made up their minds. It smacks of 2000 and the installation of W over the truly-elected Gore. Whether that's fair or not, *it doesn't matter*. And I can't believe the DNC leadership was dumb enough to allow that to happen.
For the astounding success of his 50 state strategy. It's not the DNC's fault the Dem party leaders in FL & MI wanted to change the rules in mid-game. They initially agreed & approved the primary schedule just like every other state. They left the DNC no choice. It was the only way from preventing the primary process from going into chaos. Then every state would want to be moved up in the schedule in mid-game.
the rank and file couldn't care less about "the primary process." They feel that the Party leadership - theirs, Howard Dean's, whoever - has screwed with them and deprvied them of their vote and voice.
Call them stupid if you want, but they're staying home and their votes and wallets with them.
LSophia. What you've shared in this post and your earlier post in this thread are exactly the same kinds of things I have been hearing......and frankly, thinking myself. I have been disheartened & disenfranchised by the Democratic party leadership and they have lost me.....at least for now.
I have already reregistered as an Independent. Not that my meager support will amount to a hill of beans. But if enough people decide to do the same, hopefully they will get the message that what Dean & Co. have done with the Michigan & Florida contest results was just plain WRONG!
Do you understand that FL & MI Dem party leaders tried to change the rules in mid-game?!
MI & FL along with every other state, voted to approve this year's primary schedule! Those states voted to approve the schedule! They had a chance to debate it then. What are we supposed to do, let any state that wants to change their primary voting date at any given time do so? It would be complete chaos!
Sheesh, these are the same uniformed talking points Rush & Hannity have been going on about in regards to the Dem primary.
Seriously, I understand your upset your preferred candidate didn't win the nom, but mine didn't either ok?
So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree. -- Dave Mason
Those are my sentiments, exactly!
should know, care & respect their musical leanings? I never expect random political bloggers to know or give 2 cents about my musical tastes.
My daughters frequently comment on how good it is!
FWIW!
but I don't assume other people know, care and respect my musical leanings; just those interested in music more than just casually.
MI & FL voted to approve the primary schedule, along with every other state in the union. For the Dem leadership in those states to try to change the rules in mid game after they already approved the schedule, was totally reckless & selfish.
Dean is the best thing to happen to the party in a long time. Consequentially, the DNC is doing a damn fine job now. He was my preferred candidate in 2004. Like Hillary, he too almost got the Dem POTUS nomination. I was so bummed & upset that Kerry got it instead. But guess what? I got behind Kerry & campaigned for him too....cause it was the responsible thing to do.
This time around, Edwards was my choice. He lost too. That doesn't mean you take your ball and go home. You get behind the nominee & fight to keep improving the system.
You don't have a clue what the actual RULZ say.
Therefore, your argument concerning MI and FL is invalid.
That admission means you don't belong here.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
What's that supposed to mean? Jesus, I didn't know this was some sort of an elitist club.
I can ensure you that Democracy For America has many active members & supporters that were for Wes in 2004.
Guess I know where your comin from now.
Where I'm coming from is that this site is for a community of fellow Wes Clark supporters, most of whom came from the Draft Clark Movement and/or Clark '04 presidential campaign.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I don't see that written here:
Welcome to the Clark Community Network!
A Message from General Wesley Clark
Welcome to the Clark Community Network!
Thank you for joining me in exploring efforts to address the serious challenges that America faces, both at home and around the world. In order to solve our problems we need to put our differences aside and work together. That is true patriotism.
I ask you to take a look at my ideas about proposed solutions and vision for our country. It's my hope that you will become involved with me and WesPAC in creating a secure America for all citizens.
Together we will make a difference!
Unless the rules have been changed without notification Stan, this is not a country club, nor is it a day-spa.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
Thank you for joining me in exploring efforts to address the serious challenges that America faces...
It's my hope that you will become involved with me and WesPAC in creating a secure America for all citizens.
I'm done with this thread. You like to argue. I don't.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
authorized to make that judgment?
Seriously Stan, as a draftclarker in '04, I'd really like to know who's changed Wes Clark's criteria for posting here since his site was first founded back then.
Or maybe you were kidding? That comment looks as if it belongs above the signature of another.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
do the rank and file care?
Not really. This has nothing to do with who won, this has everything to do with furious people feeling (accurately or not) that the Democratic Party has gamed the election.
Dean & Co may have been "right," but I fear it's an instance of winning the battle but losing the war.
that it's not "Dean & Co's fault"
Our disagreement is how the perception of this whole issue is gonna pan out I suppose.
I'm not so sure there are huge swaths of MI & FL Dem voters who blame Dean & hate the DNC now so much that they will not vote for Obama in November.
From what I understand, the general sentiment in FL newspapers etc...is that the primary debacle is the result of state politicans political posturing, not the DNC.
I think Dean blew it - he may have been acting technically correctly, but in such a close election, it would have been better to somehow broker a solution.
I'd personally have favored a re-vote, whether it adhered to the rules or not.
And I wouldn't count out the number of voters who may well stay home.
Who cares if he actually followed the rules, & being "technically correct"
We need get back to the good ol' days when the DNC chairman could be bullied & bribed into his decisions.
but whatever. My point, though, is that the rank and file don't believe that the rules were fair, whether the leaders agreed to them or not. They may very well stay away from the election due to their anger and disgust with their leaders, whether those in Michigan and Florida or Dean himself.
Karen L. Thurman (FL Dem Party Chair): "Show Me The MONEY $$$$$$!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM1qEtNIgSM
(the more illuminating parts are towards the end)
I'm not even going to 'speculate' as to whether or not Ms.Thurman had a hand in forcing down the paper ballot legislation. But state Senator Geller certainly seemed giddy about the entire matter.
Chairman Dean had nothing to do with this. DNC and the RBC enforced the same rules that would have been enforced at the hand of Terry McAuliffe in 2004. If there is a "perception" of changing rules mid-game from Obama's supporters, we can surely thank Hillary's campaign manager for it.
Lest we forget, as mentioned by another poster upthread, McAuliffe also had a hand in forcing Wes's early out in the primary '04. And I have no idea precisely when ms. Thurman was installed. Now that would be interesting.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
the facts his you in the face; there's not one thing you said that was true. No wonder the dem party is in trouble; they've become the lying republicans. You seriously need to do some research before you post and not repeat the same old talking points.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
on the campaign trail for O. He also said O wants a relationship with Bill due to his vast knowledge of pretty much everything. Doesn't sound like Axelrod plans to have Bill on the campaign trail.
I think many of the 18 million people who voted for Hillary are going to take a long time making up their minds. O will have to earn all these votes, including mine.
BO's gonna have to work REAL hard in the upcoming months if he wants to win this. I hope he understands that it's been a cakewalk, thus far.
That he understands it's been a cakewalk, thus far. I'd bet he thinks it's been the hardest thing he's ever done in his life, and I bet it has been. He will soon learn, compared to taking it against the Repubs, it actually has been pretty easy thus far. He had all the money, a great majority of the media, the blogs, and the Dem leadership behind him, and an opponent who effectively had both hands tied behind her back. If he retains all those things, the GE won't be as bad as it was for say Gore or Kerry, but compared to what he's been through so far he ain't seen nothin' yet... We'll see what he's made of I suppose. Or not. He's got one of the most successful marketers in the country working for him, so we'll see just how good Axelrod is when he's up against people who aren't going to hold back anything.
I honestly do understand why our General didn't run again. It's a horrible, ugly game that corporate press has made of our presidential elections, and the amount of money one has to raise to even be considered is obscene.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
and not answered, so I think I'll ask again.
Exactly what do you and others mean by "...had both hands tied behind her back."?
but I think it has to do with implied racism if she or her campaign mentioned most anything critical concerning Obama. For instance, Bill Clintons remarks on Jesse Jackson taken out of context and blown into the "Clintons are racists, the Clintons are racists."
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
but as you said you're not sure.
Is anyone sure, or is it just something that becomes CW because it gets repeated so often?
to explain to you because I saw your reply to me the other day (last night?) that implied you really didn't see any media bias against Clinton and pro Obama.
The reality is the media venom, sexism and unbalanced coverage was obvious to many. Craig Crawford and Bill Press were rare in speaking out about it, and if you notice, neither of them were ever invited on the talking head teevee shows afterwards.
CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney [Spears], he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him." I really think it's a problem. ...
----------
BILL PRESS: It began with the networks' deciding which candidates were serious and which were not -- and therefore ignoring qualified contenders like Joe Biden or Ron Paul. It continued with the media's admitted infatuation with John McCain and Barack Obama. It culminated with the media's declaring open season on the Clintons. In contrast to fawning reports about Obama crowds, every story about the Clinton campaign is sprinkled with snide, critical, even crude, comments about Hillary or Bill.
---------------
She literally had to walk on eggshells in speaking about Obama. Any criticism was either racist, whiney, or *itchy. When asked if she thought Obama was a muslim, it took her one second to answer, yet look what the media did to her over it! They went on nonstop for days.
...
Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.
Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.
Lots of eager, tsk-tsking pundits and reporters agreed. They said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying....
...
After parsing Clinton's answer and then conveniently setting aside key sections of it, journalists at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Time, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, among others, declared her response had been wholly deficient. Worse, Clinton's answer simply confirmed that she was running a "slimy," "nasty" contest. It was a "galling" comment; "the sleaziest moment of the campaign."
The only thing sleazy about the episode was the type of journalism being used to concoct a Clinton slur.
What do you think would have happened if she had addressed Obama's ties to Exelon, Rezko, to Wright, to Ayers, or any of the other shady, thuggish characters Obama is tied to? She was literally hamstrung from pointing out anything negative about Obama, things that every person considering who to vote for has a right to know.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Her hands were tied in the sense that when she was tough, as a commander in chief would be expected to be with all the hell going on throughout the world, she was called a b#@*h or worse, yet if she let her feelings and feminine side show at any time, she was using tears to garner sympathy or she was a weak woman who let her emotions get in the way. No one accepted you could have a soft, caring and emotional side, yet still make those hard, objective decisions that a President must make.
The last several times I saw him he remarked on it as well-- he couldn't get over how horribly his good friend had been treated in the media, said he'd never seen anything like it before in his life, particularly one network...
Here is the FHA (PT 1) of the first UCLA appearance where he mentioned it.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14694
And here is some transcript from the Q & A of the day -:
===============================================
Why General Clark is ‘appalled’
Q: Would you assess the performance of the mainstream media in their current coverage of the election?
Ms note: Wes’s tone here tells me he’s seriously disturbed by this... And not without a tinge of sadness. Although there’s occasional laughter in the room, Wes is clearly not taking this subject lightly – at all.
WES: Oh, I give ‘em “F”. (trickles of laughter) Um… Fox News has been the best… and that pains me greatly. […] And, MSNBC, for whatever reason, they just went after Hillary really hard.. My Army officer friends who have daughters, they’re very much feminists, and some of my officer friends – they really stand up for their daughters and have taken this in a way personally. Much more than I did. I had a son, I wasn’t ‘culturally aligned’ the same. But when you look at the way that Hillary Clinton’s been attacked and vilified by Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and the others… to me it’s… astonishing.I first realized it when I was coming in one afternoon, my wife was watching TV and called me in and Chris Matthews is asking; (Wes does a loud roaring Tweety imitation)
“Is Hillary Clinton a Crook?”
Honestly! Do you think she’s a crook?!? I mean, is he only doing this for dramatic effect?
I’ve got in my blackberry like 50 different sexual, gender slurs that would be prosecutable were they given against a private person. That if someone said that in the military, an officer- about a female soldier, we’d throw them out. We’d court martial. We’d fire them!
And he’s saying it everyday on the media....
How ‘bout that taunt of, “IRON MY SHIRT!” Yeah, great. And a few people chuckled when it was replayed on television…and nobody said; “That is an outrageous, disgusting, anti-feminine comment!”
(he pauses…)
They didn’t say that. And I’m, I’m … I’m appalled….
...
The Clintons have a long and combative relationship with the media which Barack Obama doesn’t have. He was able to get in and captivate the media, despite the fact that he refused to hold press conferences or won’t talk to them at all. He hasn’t been taken to task for this. For Barack, it’s a better story line. They like the underdog.
People in the press they start with a hypothesis and then they confirm or deny the hypothesis. The hypothesis is their story line. Y’know,(and Wes plays both roles here)
“Barack Obama is a great orator!. True or False?”
“Ah, he gave a great speech-- True!!”
“Hillary Clinton is cold. And ruthless!”
“Well… She didn’t shake my hand. True!”
(laughter in the room)
==============================================
Those of us who took the nine month ride here (which I tried to detail in my blog) took it all in every day. It came from all sides - even if it wasn't the blatant "She's just like the screeching ex wife asking you to take out the garbage! Hahahaha!" it would be the subtle yet pervasive daily framing of her in the media, as this manipulative desperate, conniving, losing (oh yes always losing) Lady MacBeth Beyotch.
I documented it regularly with articles. The language after each and every win-- hurriedly published to turn it into an unmistakable LOSS. Before each contest, the endless speculations, from the Iowa days on out-- O WHAT WILL SHE DO IF SHE LOSES? (gasp pant) WILL SHE FOLD UP? WILL SHE DROP OUT? HILLARY BROKE? And Drudge had her doing just that, folding, before each primary contest.
So how do you frame her as a loser and convince the public of that, despite her big wins? It was careful and consistent.
First it would be, Well she was expected to win, Ohio isn't really important anyways, she cried, she lied, she stole it, she rigged it, she strong armed voters, disenfranchised voters, changed the rules, who cares about Pennsylvania, California is not really important now, we knew she'd win it, and she really only won by a little bit, just the smallest teeny tiny margin, she eeked it out, she squeaked it out, she barely hardly even won it at all... in fact we're just gonna have to say that the net result was ... she lost! That's right. She lost. Add it to all those other pathetic losses. Loser, pathetic loser that she is. Did you hear - 11 in a row?!! He won 11 in a row 11 in a row 11 in a row 11 in a row. Did you hear? That's 11. In a row! She is desperately looking for money. She mentioned her website url on the air again Hahahahaha she's broke! hhahahahaha! She only had 20 people at her rally! Hahahahaha! He's an unknown, Barack who? She's known, that's why they voted for her. Sure she got New Jersey, it's next to New York! Of course she'll get Kentucky it's really super close to New York! She can't get any REAL states. Her negatives are too high! West Virginia is nothing but a bunch of hillbillies and they only voted for her because they're racists! Only Appalachians vote for her. They don't even read! hahahahaha! She only gets old racist white grandmothers and blue collar racist hicks. Hahahaha! She cried for herself so she'd win N Hampshire - not for the black people who died in Katrina - racist! Massachusetts? That was a fluke. I think she stole that one too. Indiana is irrelevant. 11 in a row 11 in a row. Of course she won, he didn't even campaign there.
And so it went all day every day. This fevered campaign to paint Hillary as this desperate and driven loser.
Wes Clark was not imagining this, and neither were we. We were right here listening, along with him, and equally appalled and "astonished"--
we imagined the whole thing?!?! Or maybe he just imagined it all along with us.
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
He was appalled. I remember other occasions where he talked about it, and I think he also expressed it on the air a few times as well.
But here's the deal. Like I said earlier somewhere- if you weren't looking or hearing it through that filter of some Clinton identity or some slight glimmer of affection for her in the first place, if in your heart you'd already hated her / him / them -- no way you would pick up on any of it. And your response to Wes, or to your or my detailing it would be "Huh? what do you mean bias? She was treated the same as Obama." It's just the way it is. I've seen this repeatedly. You'd notice if your Mom was treated poorly and made to look foolish or lame on the local news. Nobody else might pick up on it.
Pulling back I'd say he got the worst of the offline email smears- that are pretty vile and damaging on one level, but there's no contest that she was continually maligned and diminished in the mainstream. He had free ride and even chills up thighs on the mainstream until they teased the Rev tapes. That was water testing on the part of the Repubs I think.
At the onset, I never expected her to be dealt with so harshly, so it threw me for a loop-- And Wes too it would seem. He seemed genuinely shocked. But I had never wandered into those dark arenas of the deep right where Clinton hate is so thick and potent you could light a barbecue with it. I'd flitted into Freepers - but as they don't run the news departments... it never occurred to me...
Not to be underestimated. They did a good hatchet job. She stood up against it and wasn't deterred by it for the longest time- while all of us were wilting like old beaten trampled pansies... :)
Laura Bush still mostly gets traditional positive media coverage as first lady, but Teresa Kerry was never treated warmly, and I doubt whe would have been as First Lady either if she opened her mouth about anything more controversial than Libraries. Sharp knives are out for Michelle Obama also. Before Laura there was Hillary.
post deleted
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
I am one of them ... (women, that is) :)
Been watching it for many years with some very unique opportunities to see some close up examples that were - very educational...
We've all seen our share of it. Yes, Teresa did get her 15 minutes of some pretty vile attacks, that's very true.
Can't say, however, that I recall a woman who's endured several decades of multiple orchestrated campaigns against them ... Maybe Eva Peron?
The Peron's were both forever embroiled in the middle of a sea of controversy, they were both revered and reviled. He; the powerful national leader, womanizer - she; the suffragette organizer and proponent of labor and women's rights.
Take a look for fun (Wiki):
She received great support from the Peronist political base, low-income and working class Argentines referred to as descamisados or "shirtless ones". However, opposition from the nation's military and elite, coupled with her declining health, ultimately forced her to back down.
[...]
Incidentally, she was also the first woman in Argentine public life to wear trousers. (!)
A mass of women who cared little about women's rights and were indifferent to the concerns of middle-class feminists had entered politics because of Evita. They were the first Argentine women to be active in politics, they gave Perón a large majority in 1951, and they remained loyal to him and what they saw as the principles of Peronism long after their inspiration and figurehead had died.
Biographers Navarro and Fraser claim that everything Evita did was ultimately subordinate to the larger goals and aims of her husband's political agenda.
n 1951, Evita set her sights on earning a place on the ballot as candidate for vice-president. This move angered many military leaders who despised Evita and her increasing powers within the government. She eventually declined to run for Vice President and shortly thereafter learned she was in ill health, and diagnosed with cancer. Most biographers postulate that Evita did not so much renounce her ambition in turning down the Vice Presidential bid as bow out due to pressure from her husband, the military, and the Argentine upper class, who preferred that she not enter the race.
She did, however, receive great support from the working class, the unions, and the Peronist Women's Party. The intensity of the support she drew from these groups is said to have surprised even Juan Perón himself.
Time Magazine later published an article by Tomás Eloy Martínez, Director of the Latin American program at Rutgers University, titled "The Woman Behind the Fantasy: Prostitute, Fascist, Profligate — Eva Perón was Much Maligned, Mostly Unfairly".
< snip >
"She was far from being a saint, despite the veneration of millions of Argentines, but she was not a villain either. Human beings are full of contradictions and labyrinthine complexities.."
I know they aren't the same - and the eras are separated by half a century... but it's hard to find many examples in recent history that compare in both longevity and intensity of the campaigns waged against another First Couple.
But back on topic -- Wes was, at the time of his comments, tightly focused and very concerned about the most blatant and glaring examples of the media "attacks" that he and his friends had been witnessing non stop. And those were on Hillary. Myself and many others couldn't argue with his appraisal. But I know there are many who do find fault with his perspective... and I can appreciate where that's coming from too. The old perception conundrum. :)
...it would have been interesting to see if the Right would have worked to demonize Teresa in a manner similar to that used with Hillary. Prior to Bill running for President Hillary wasn't a national target either. For all three women; Hillary, Teresa, and Michelle, the attacks started as soon as their husbands became serious candidates for President. Bill won and so they never stopped attacking Hillary.
But...Well, you know... you can go all the way back to her Wellesley commencement address as a student, chiding Mass. Sen Brooke for his failure to even mention both the Civil Rights movement or the war in his speech that preceded hers. She stuck her neck out there, and took quite a bit of flack for it. Plus go back in the archives to the First Couple of Arkansas in the 80's and I think you'll find more budding hostility there as well. Even her little recognition as one of the "100 Most Influential Attorneys" in the country -- she was harshly rebuked and mocked for having referred to the honor as "one of the 'top' 100 attorneys in the country" instead of 'influential'. This was an obvious indication of her ruthlessness ambition. Gasp. Liar. B*tch. Scum. etc
Had the 2004 election not been stolen, had Teresa been First Lady, had Kerry counted the votes, had Kerry not gone skiing with Ahnold instead, had anyone in Congress outside Barbara Boxer, Stephanie Tubbs Jones and John Conyers spoken out.... Yes... I totally agree - then today Teresa would most definitely be on her 4th year of being the seminal 21st century female pinata and the subject of endless Tweety and teh Boyz mockery, bashing and prime time chuckles at her expense. No doubt about it.
And she would still be decades behind Hillary in volume. :)
was that I thought she ran a poor campaign. Truthfully media bias wasn't in my thoughts when I said that. I was thinking campaign strategy by her people, not the press.
It just seemed to me as I watched things unfold that her campaign was at a loss as to what to do after Super Tuesday. As though they had no back-up plan when the race wasn't over by Feb. 5, which Hillary had said it would be. There seemed to be no contingency plan. It wouldn't have mattered who the candidate that upset what they seemed to think was her lock on the nomination in Iowa and on Super Tuesday had been.
Biden, Dodd, whoever. They spent money like water and yet not necessarily where it would have done the most good. And then almost immediately they began the, caucuses bad, red states inconsequential, talk. I don't think that helped them with those people. Like I said, they seemed flummoxed at that point.
The media sucks, I can't and won't argue that. The media thrives on conflict. They only care about ratings and conflict build ratings. Any politician that doesn't that know that going in shouldn't be a politicians.
"What do you think would have happened if she had addressed Obama's ties to Exelon, Rezko, to Wright, to Ayers, or any of the other shady, thuggish characters Obama is tied to?"
Was I dreaming when I saw and heard her mention those characters?
Politics, as Wes has said, is a blood sport. And the press pushes it as far as they can. They want a death match for their own reasons. Depending on which talking head you happened to be listening to there was bias for and against both of them, and it was pretty constant.
Depending on who's side a person was on, the bias would naturally be seen as worse against the candidate that person backed. That's a normal reaction.
As someone who had decided that I wasn't thrilled with either of them but whoever won I would back them because the alternative is just not acceptable, (yeah, it still sucks to have to be in that position again, but there it is) no doubt it was easier for me to not internalize the crap the media was spewing at both of them.
Yes, supporters on both sides used "race" & "gender" where they could to their advantage. It stinks but race and gender bias exists in the world. Some of it subtle, some blatant. Politics is down and dirty and no one came out of this with clean hands.
My question is, are we, as voters going to so internalize the divisive nature of this particular primary so intensely that we loose sight of the end goal? And if we do how are we helping change the bias that has been so starkly exposed?
It's out there. It needs to be fought, but does piling all the blame for it being exposed (which is really what we're pissed off about) on a black male candidate and a white woman candidate do anything to alleviate the situation or make it worse?
Because the press and some individuals that we know or have heard, or have read used bias to keep things "interesting" do we focus more on the wrongs that have been done than trying to build a society that will one day get past those biases?
I just don't see that only one candidate "had both hands tied behind their back".
They both fought, and fought hard to garner the nod. They fought within the system as it stands and has stood for years. Maybe the system does suck...that's neither candidates fault. Maybe it needs changed. But again, we can either call foul (though I really like the word "fowl" better) and rant that it wasn't fair or we can go forward with what is at the present and then fight and claw for a better system once we've gotten to the end game.
For right now we need to win in November! We need to play the hand that has been dealt today not the hand we had yesterday.
We need to beat the Republicans.
God, I've rambled long enough.
No one's gonna read this one LOL.
Thank goodness. I thought I was in the twilight zone.
I'm having a hard time understanding the blame game going on.
I get the sucky media part. I could put together clips on how unfair it was to either Dem especially compared to McCain. The only good media Obama got was some for his speech on race and the money he raised and the crowds who came out. Stuff that they couldn't exactly ignore, though some tried. Otherwise it was pretty much negative and out of balance...(Wright!!!)
But what I'm really having trouble with is the vitrol against Howard Dean. Howard Dean didn't make the party rules. I believe that was Geraldine Ferraro and others after the elections in 1980. Here is her explanation of the system in February this year:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,537500,00.html
Got a Problem? Ask the Super
By Geraldine A. Ferraro
Superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for the Democratic Party and best for the country........
n 1982, we tried to remedy some of the party's internal problems by creating the Hunt Commission, which reformed the way the party selects its presidential nominees. Because I was then the vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus, Tip O’Neill, the speaker of the House, appointed me as his representative to the commission. The commission considered several reforms, but one of the most significant was the creation of superdelegates, the reform in which I was most involved.
>>>snip
Democrats had to figure out a way to unify our party. What better way, we reasoned, than to get elected officials involved in writing the platform, sitting on the credentials committee and helping to write the rules that the party would play by?
>>>>>snip
He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time -- not nonmembers or day-of registrants -- to vote for the party’s nominee.
>>>>>snip
As it happens, the superdelegates themselves can solve this problem. At this summer’s Democratic national convention in Denver, the superdelegates could assert their leadership on the credentials and rules committees. That is, after all, one of the reasons they were created in the first place in 1982.
end>>>>
So the credential committee that was led by Clinton supporters 14 to 8 for Obama decided the outcome of the FL and MI primaries and this is Deans fault??? This is Obama being disrespectful to women and refusing to count votes??
What am I missing here? Why is the blame on Howard Dean?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/dems.delegates/
snip>>>
With no Michigan or Florida delegates included, Obama led Clinton by 202 delegates.
The committee's ruling gave Clinton 105 pledged delegates from Florida and 69 from Michigan, with a total of 87 votes.
Obama received 67 pledged delegates from Florida and 59 from Michigan, casting a total of 63 votes.
That tally leaves Obama ahead by the equivalent of 174 delegates.
If each delegate had been granted a full vote, Clinton still would have trailed Obama.
>>>snip
I don't know. Maybe I need to do research at NoQuarter to understand this. He seems to have a special explanation for everything.
Sorry Ohio! I didn't mean to ramble on you! I guess we are just a couple of ramblers!
There's good brain research on this. Our brains support our preconceptions. There were excellent studies in 2004 of Dems and Reps watching debates. I'm sure the same would be true of partisans during a primary. I hope such research has been done and we will be hearing about it soon.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/
Leadership means lifting people up. --Wes Clark
goes into the pockets of the media. It would be interesting to follow the money trail with this gigantic windfall.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
I guess it depends on the perspective. It seemed to me she was the media presumptive nominee that started with all the money.:)
I don't know. Obama's money is not that open. What is that called, looping or something some sort of way to maneuver contributions, his contributions are not so clear cut. He too had the money. He also had the caucus voting situation that was not so clear, and the murky MI and FL voting thing, and the media supporting him. There are many arguments for and against these circumstances, just the same, these issues lean to delegitimize his nomination. It would be best for democrats if he dealt with these issues head-on.
The elected dem leaders in those states initially approved & voted for the primary schedule, along with all the other states.
If they were opposed to the primary schedule, they had a chance to state so then.
It's not fair to try to change the rules in mid game. Dean gave 'em a more than fair warning, begged them not to try to change the rules in mid game & they didn't listen.
Dean kept the primary process from going into chaos.
the leadership doesn't matter in this instance, whether they agreed or not.
The rank and file don't care. To them, Dean is now the guy who deprived them of their voice and vote.
The DNC has also handed the Republicans a weapon on a platter. "This guy couldn't even win his own party's nomination fairly! Just think what he'll do if we put him in charge of COUNTRY!"
Three seconds of ads like that and the Democratic nominee (because I am 100% certain they will wait until after convention) is branded as an unethical crook. Couple that with the misleading public perception that Democrats have no moral center and you have a SERIOUS problem.
I'm sure it was legally correct, but, in this case, I'm not sure it *matters*, sadly enough. Perception is key.
Is that the SAME Terry McAuliffe who, subtly or NOT, made sure the General was "excused" from the race early in 2004? To quote him in support of anything resembling what's fair or legal...well, let's just say I don't think he's a good source if your'e looking to make those points.
So, today, Obama's man in charge of the search for a VP quit amid questions about loans from Countrywide. You know, federal investigation re: subprime mortgage crisis. He's had other 'lobbyists' on his team resign, too.
As has McCain. That's where O's "change" message falls short. O is securely entrenched in politics as usual, just as most of the primary contenders - dems & repubs - were. O sent his VP vetting team to DC to talk to...Pelosi & Reid...you know, the two dems who took impeachment off the table.
I'm not one to be swayed by someone who continually shouts, "CHANGE" with not only nothing to back it up...but with actions that shout even louder, "CONFORMITY" and "PARTY LOYALTY".
Of course, I think we have a Washington party that doesn't really give a hoot about the citizens of this fine nation. It's all about money & power and who can take the most of each from someone else and whose pockets need to be lined to make that happen. Yes, that would include O and McCain (and most of the other primary candidates).
And for me, it really doesn't matter whether I vote or not. I live in AZ, and it will surely go for McCain...OMG!
um, Johnson has been vetting vps for Democrats for years, fwiw.
So if he has stepped down from Obama's vetting committee, well, that is a little 'change', isn't it?
As for McAuliffe, if you're addressing my post (I'm not sure) the point was that he supported counting MI, even knowing they were in defiance of DNC rules, as Hillary's campaign chairman...but as you can see, he did not support credentialling MI delegates when he was DNC chair. adamantly. did. not.
Yes, the same Terry McAuliffe you refer to in conjunction with Wes's suspension
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
is change in some sense of the word, but why was Johnson on his vetting team in the first place? When I think of change, I think of something bold and outside of the politics as usual DC crew. Having someone who bows out because he got busted as cashing in on personal loans in the worst loan debacle since the late '80's (research here McCain's affilliation with Charles Keating) and it looks far more like an "I'm leaving because I got caught and I'm a liability to your change message". Just more of the same 'ole, same 'ole.
You might be a new 'king ant', but what's the difference if all of the worker ants in the colony are simply recycled from somewhere else in the party...and you're relying on them to get you elected?
That's where McAuliffe comes in. He's a worker ant for the party, hitching his wagon to the most recent flavor of the month. He can do that because he's a loyalist and understands how our current 2 party system rules.
Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I don't think someone who's using recycled party machinery can suddenly break away from it and demand the change it's going to take to get this country back...which is what O's change message alludes to. He's beholdin' to the party, and if he even remotely sounds like he wants anything too challenging to the status quo, he'll be on the outs just like the General was in 2004.
And if he is elected pResident, he still has to work with a Congress (insert here Pelosi & Reid) who have shown little backbone in the past 2 years in terms of taking the current administration to task. What do you think are the chances they're going to be willing to do anything bold after the election?
It's all about self-perservation over the best interest and will of the American people. The 2 party system has a stranglehold on American politics and no meaningful change will happen...regardless of who is the mouthpiece...until that is broken.
As a voter, I'm looking for someone (like the General) who's willing to just tell the truth. This election cycle, that would've been maybe Mike Gravel on the dem side and, Ron Paul on the repub side...the 2-party machinery and the media made sure they were both written off early.
So, now we're left with McCain and Obama...whoo, hoo.
by Terry McAuliffe
Excerpt (in his own words, yep) :
"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.
"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."
He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.
"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.
"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."
We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.
more: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/25/mcauliffe_said_michigan_shouldnt_count.html
As Hillary's campaign manager of course, he changed his tune
...how "murky" is that?
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
The Florida Dems had zippo to do with the primary date. It was the Republican legislature and the Republican governor. (Michigan is a different case. Carl Levin and others argued for an early primary to blunt the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire.)
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
mocks the DNC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OVuqHW7hZo&NR=1
It's my understanding that the following day, Senator Geller voted in favor of the Jan 29 primary date and it passed the FL state legislature 37-2 with a bipartisan majority
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
The Repub controlled Legislature (along with a Repub Gov) moved up the primary date.
Unfortunately, the Repub Leg tied the Primary date-change to a Bill that would provide a paper trail, at long last, from the voting machines. After 2000, how could the Dems in the Leg not vote FOR the legislation?
They did try to unhook the two legislative items.
Another little-known and undiscussed fact.
Fact check: Looks like the spin is on both sides
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/pac-ing_heat.html
Clinton and Obama each have raised far more money than previous candidates for president from either party, with little (in Clinton’s case) or none (in Obama’s case) coming from PACs and active federal lobbyists. For either to accuse the other of being financed by special-interest money is, to put the matter kindly, misleading.
Analysis
As the Pennsylvania primary (finally) draws near, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have released a barrage of new attack ads. In the most recent (so far) installment, Clinton accused Obama of talking a good game about getting tough on lobbyists despite having accepted almost $2 million from lobbyists and political action committees (PACs). Obama fired right back, charging that Clinton has taken more money from lobbyists and PACs than any other candidate and accusing Clinton of running "eleventh hour smears" that are "paid for with lobbyist money." We find both ads to be distortions.
If I google back door contributions Obama the only thing I get is NoQuarter which is an unreliable hate site that has strawman arguement about individual contributers being lawyers on opensecrets.
If I google looping contibutions I get a Hillary Clinton article by ABC:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/clinton-does-la.html
Clinton Does Labor-to-Lobbyist Loop
Email
Share
August 07, 2007 2:30 PM
ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, under fire from her rivals for accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists, will head directly from a labor forum in Chicago to a fundraiser at a lobbyist's home Tuesday evening.
Which I think is also a non issue. Look we all know the system is flawed because of all this crazy money candidates have to raise to compete. Hillary has had to return contributions so has Barack. This does not make them dirty.
They are both good democrats that I hope will take steps toward campaign reform.
Contrary to what you have been reading, there is nothing dirty, shady, murky that makes this nomination illegitment.
I too have read articles about Obama's contributions most likely the ones you have not read.
The money is not clear no matter who you reference.
Do you think I am just making that up?
Hillary has nothing to do with it, she is not running for presidient.
ABC is not a reliable source in my opinion.
I could go back and forth and reference the articles I have read, but really what good would it do?
I suppose my point was to express, there is doubt about Obama's contributions and it is the doubt that is troublesome to him as a candidate.
Because of the murky MI and FL primaries, either candidate would have suffered the criticisms of illegitimacy. I mean really isn't that an honest assessment of that whole fiasco?
0 ratings do not help your cause.
Rating number 1 I can understand. But rating 0 I don't understand.
I see now how the ratings game is going to be played, throw out the 0 saber, punish opinions.
If I am wrong I will certainly admit it, punishment for either expressing my views or being wrong is inappropriate, and frankly, overkill.
And by 0 rating me you have hurt your candidate because you have insulted me, nothing you post will persuade me, or for that matter interest me, I now know where you are coming from.
on this rating stuff. I really don't like it at all. It's one of the reasons I never could stand Daily Kos.
I really took offense to your comment, "delegitimize his nomination."
I don't think General Clark would have endorsed Senator Obama if he had won the nomination illegitimately.
I didn't know the 0 was a "saber so thanks for the info. I thought since you had four stars and that if I strongly disagreed with the statement I would have to click at the other end to balance it out. When you strongly disagree you give one star? Is this a blog rule?
I guess I'm just going to ignore this rating stuff.
Sorry to offend.
I took offense to your vague assumptions and researched the accusations as best I could. My point was the money isn't always clear no matter which candidate you look at. It's a campaign reform issue.
The fault of the whole "murky" MI and FL primaries can not be laid at the feet of Senator Obama or Senator Clinton or Howard Dean. IMO.
fair enough..
my point was to not say Obama won illegitimately, it was the party who did not fix this early on and left doubtful legitimate issues just sit there foster. It was not going to be fair to either candidate, Hillary not presently running, Obama is left with this negative issue. I read some articles from people in FL they were particularly angry at Sen. Obama, this is what I am getting at, these are the many people that need to be convinced to vote for him. It runs deep and those people are hurt - it is an issue.
of outside forces trying to divide the Democratic Party. Republicans will feed into this.....it's their only chance.