thank you, theda, for you post. as an independent, my answer to the last question in your original post is... it doesn't look like it right now!

but thankfully, i don't believe this election will be won with progressives and old democrats. this election will be won with independents, disgruntled disgusted newly converted republicans, and people who are engaging in politics for the first time.

so in many ways, it's a blessing that we don't have to count on democrats to grow up. because as was already pointed out by someone else in the will rogers quote somewhere above - they probably never will. same as it ever was... same as it EVER was.

Posted at July 14, 2008 8:25 AM in response to Can Progressives Unite, or Will It Be the Same Old Bit-Politics Story?

but what CAN be done when the editors and news sources ban anyone critical of this practice?

Posted at June 6, 2008 9:41 AM in response to BILL CLINTON'S REMARK: WHEN "GOTCHA" JOURNALISM CROSSES ETHICAL LINES

i, too, was banned on huff post for writing a comment exposing who mayfield fowler REALLY is...

what i wrote was fully researched and documented.

fowler is an ethically challenged, sneaky bitch and if huff post weren't ethically challenged, themselves, they would ditch her, not try to cover for her.

her journalistic sins are just part and parcel of her overall lack of a moral compass.

Posted at June 6, 2008 9:00 AM in response to BILL CLINTON'S REMARK: WHEN "GOTCHA" JOURNALISM CROSSES ETHICAL LINES

well, i'm a 50+ woman. and once upon a time, i idolized hillary! i expected her to be the first woman president and was very excited about that idea!

but i've completely lost all respect for her, and am quite franky shocked that ANY bright woman isn't offended by how she's performed, how she's squandered, with incompetent planning and petty behavior, our gender's opportunity to prove ourselves equal to men in every sense. and i totally disagree with hillary's (and her remaining supporter's) claims that this has been an sexist primary.

having gone through a LOT of REAL challenging things in my OWN life, and especially because i AM a woman, i have precious little sympathy for women who play the victim card. i personally wouldn't call them strong women. REAL strong women can't abide a woman who constantly thinks she's a victim!

i read the article you posted.

and, i'm sorry but, to me, that, too, is nothing but a giant steaming cauldron of "victimhood"!

i'm wondering, how can people address hillary WITHOUT it being construed as sexist? if i had to define her entire campaign in one word, that word would be "pitiful".

what i see, as a very disillusioned and disappointed woman and one-time hillary fan, is hillary demonstrating nothing BUT the very WORST and WEAKEST aspects of our gender.

initially, there was the beauty queen sense of entitlement that caused her to think she was going to be "handed" this nomination. this can't be blamed on anyone but hillary and her staff.

it's well documented, by her own staff, that they were so confident that she would be anointed on super tuesday, that she didn't put ANY effort into caucus states, and had absolutely NO ground organization prepared for ANY state after that date.

that's pure arrogance. HER arrogance.
and that's incompetence. HER incompetence.
no one else can be blamed for THAT!

and no one can be blamed for her response to this error.

next, there was the "which hillary are we going to see today?" period. as a woman who's been through menopause, i feel i have every RIGHT to say she behaved like a woman going through her change of life! that, or like a woman with some kind of multi-personality disorder. as a woman looking at another woman, i didn't see anything remotely genuine in any of these personas!

when none of those worked, then came the smear campaign. like a jealous, scorned woman, like an iconic shrew, she lashed out, mind set on bloody revenge, embracing scoundrels and enemies, she went straight for the throat of her rival.

i put these criticisms in feminine terms simply because, and only because, after all, she IS a woman!

but HAD she been a man, and done the same things, my criticisms would be essentially the same. sure, the analogies drawn would be masculine in nature, if she were a man, but they would have been critical of the very same flaws. arrogance. incompetence. vengence.

as a woman, i reject the notion that this has been an intensely sexist primary. i reject it, categorically! i think hillary supporters need to take a good long look at HER performance, and stop playing the victim card, too, and reject this tactic. not just in hillary's campaign, but if need be, in their own lives.

Posted at May 20, 2008 3:06 PM in response to An Invitation to Clinton Supporters Who Wouldn't Vote for Obama in the General Election Under Any Circumstances and Who May or May Not Be Angry

the media is desperate to keep this primary going. hense, the talk that hillary has double digits leads, when she does not, and no mention of the large crowds. they are doing everything in their control to make this look like hillary still has a snowballs chance in hell, while misleading the public.

it's sad, but nothing other than an all out public backlash - akin to the one against abc - against ALL of them will change their manipulation of the truth.

were it not for the media manipulation, america would have already turned their back on the clear loser, and obama would be debating and spending OUR money on the REAL challenger - mc cain.

Posted at April 21, 2008 10:49 AM in response to I realized this weekend that I am part of the problem

i rather liked it! :)

Posted at April 15, 2008 4:42 PM in response to SHRILLARY the Limmerick(corrected)

so what? first of all, it was a private fundraiser that she sneaked into, and those comments were in answer to a question from a volunteer who was going to PA and was asking what they should expect in this pro-hillary state... NONE OF THAT WENT IN HER ARTICLE, AND THAT INFORMATION WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIS STATEMENTS CONTEXT AND MADE THEN MUCH LESS PROVOCATIVE.

not to even MENTION the fact that this woman is herself an elitist, who's dissing obama for being precisely what SHE IS! it's ludicrous! this bored rich bitch wanted to make a name for herself, pure and simple. and she went to great unethical lengths to do so. not that ethics seem to trouble her much as evidenced in her pretending to be a satisfied customer of her own enterprise.

Posted at April 15, 2008 4:35 PM in response to Who IS Mayhill Fowler?

CORRECTION: Mayhill Fowler attended Vassar, not Wesley! My bad! (god, i wish there was a way to edit these things!!!!!!)

Posted at April 15, 2008 4:05 PM in response to Who IS Mayhill Fowler?

lanny, lanny, lanny! coming from a man who wrote an entire book about the evils of "gotcha politics", you're just damn lucky you aren't hit by lightening, lanny!

truly an amazing hypocrite!

Posted at April 9, 2008 11:24 AM in response to Clinton Ally Lanny Davis: Wright Issue "Is Not Going Away"

april fools!

Posted at April 1, 2008 8:55 AM in response to BREAKING: Clinton to Concede Today