"We have picked our Nominee, and we will run with him.
We have found our Candidate, and we will vote for him....
You can stand with the black man who actually does have your economic interests at heart, or the white man who doesn't..."
Great post. Are you a speech writer? If not, consider it.

One of the best posts I have read on this site. Thank you for breaking it down.

I don't think that Clinton is racist BUT I think that she has embraced those who are and thereby trying to legitimize their point of view.

You are so correct. No other candidate I've been for has led to my sense of anxiety in seeing him in a crowd. The anxiety of.... what if something happens? Indeed I wrote a long blog about that back in January.

You've hit the nail on the head!

First of all, the title and thesis is clearly wrong. We just had a case here in a local town in which an enraged estranged husband took after his departed spouse with a sword and knife and tried to hack her to death, for the crime of rejecting him.

The notion that women are somehow "safer" in our society, because of what -- their sex? is downright stupid.

Second, of course you "damn Sean Wilentz to hell" because you can't refute his facts, so just get them out of the room.

Yep, "change you can believe in": suppress inconvenient truth, ridicule and disparage your political foes; lie when that doesn't work. It was the uber-honest Obama campaign that ran adverts in PA and IN, telling voters that Clinton would force them to buy health insurance even if they didn't want to.

Welcome to the Brave New World of Obamaspeak. Thanks for your contribution.

Thanks.

mp

The election has and will peel back the facade on alot of americans.. They Loathing that is on both sides is TOOO much. Micheal, Do you have to be AGAINST some to be for someone else....Do you have to HATE Barack to support Hill? My God ! I am tired of the "anti". The primary season that filled me with pride on so many levels has turned into THIS ...

Hillary Clinton has had her eye on the White House since her collegiate days. In 1993, one of her former collegiate friends told an interviewer that she and others who knew Hillary at Wellesley thought that she would be the first woman president. For her, the disappointment is real, and deep. The candidacy was to have been the summation of a life's work.

Barack Obama is a calculating politician

As posted by Michael Powe

Do you not see the problem with your post, or is partisan blindness complete already. You post that she has planned this for a very long time, yet you accuse Obama of being calculating. Where is the accusation towards Hillary? Why is it so many of you feel that she was "owed" it? How the hell can you state that she has been denied, when she hasn't earned it in the first place? Calculating and basing your decision purely on what affect they will have in garnering you votes for an eventual Presidential run, is not a sign of leadership! Leadership is being able to make difficult decisions that may haunt your career but because they reflect your principles, and the greater good, you make them, damn the consequences. So, is/was war with Iraq a principle that she believed in, or was it for political expediency? How many parents, husbands, daughters, lovers, friends, should accept their deeply personal loses, for her seriously flawed judgment? Let's be absolutely clear here, judgment in the decision making process is the only reason anybody should consider anyone fit to be POTUS! Anything less is pure pandering to interest groups! She has shown numerous times, and not just in this campaign, to possess very poor judgment, and that makes her a danger no matter how well she supposedly represents your point of view! But, for you to accuse Barack Obama of being a calculating politician, all the while conveniently glossing over the actions taken by the Bill and Hillary Clinton is the height of hypocrisy. Get over it, she has lost! Not to sexism, not to actions by other candidates, no she has lost because of her own actions, poor planning and judgment, and inflated sense of personal entitlement. By dragging this out, while continuing to galvanize the less educated of her supporters against the very party she supposedly represent, is testament to the internal problems she has as an individual. Mark my words, there will be a lot of people angered when the first political science textbooks come out detailing her failed campaign, but required reading it will be. In them will be the critical, but honest, assessments of her capabilities as a politician, and as a planner. The most important issue that she needs to come to grips with right now, in this juncture in her life, is what how will the Historians judge her actions. It's her choice right now as to how people will eventually judge both her and Bill, hope she plays it smart.

This may be emotional and heartfelt, but it is just not true. All candidates are at risk and always will be, and while the excuse made by the lunatics may be different in every case, the reason they do so is always the same - they are nobodies who long for recognition, seethe with envy that others have it and are driven to destroy anyone who is successful. (A damned good working definition of the press too.)

Barack Obama isn't in any more danger because he is black than Clinton is for being a woman, or any politician is for having the temerity to be successful. You're rationalizing sick and twisted actions by an individual and providing social and political significance that is seldom if ever a motivating factor in these actions. What you've written provides justification and rationalization for the mentally ill who would commit such an act.

Hillary Clinton in her comments wasn't insinuating anything in them, it is what you inferred from her comments and she is not responsible for anything that anyone might infer from comments made by her - no one can be responsible for another's actions that are unreasonable and irrational.

What Hillary does is add to the all too common discourse of death threats that has plagued Obama's candidacy from the outset. He did need secret service protection from the beginning. He is a black man in America and like Michelle Obama said, he could killed just going to the gas station. America has a history of using violence against black people and not only Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. Slaves were murdered. During Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction black people were lynched. During the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Power Movement, black people were murdered by mobs, by the police and the FBI. Today, police continue to murder unarmed black men.

And I agree that women are and have been consistently murdered by men in this society and throughout the world and so I do think Hillary is also vulnerable because of her gender and her status as a politician. Let's not pretend that America isn't extraordinarily violence and uses violence against blacks, women and people who threaten the status quo.

It doesn't matter what Hillary's intentions were, what matters is the impact. Intention vs. Impact. Perhaps she did not mean to say she'd "obliterate Iran" but the impact was that it caused much anxiety and concern. Maybe she didn't mean to insinuate that white people won't vote for Obama because he's black, but the impact was that it sounded like a racist statement. As a politician or any thoughtful person, you have to be conscious and clear about what you intend to say versus the impact it will have when you say it.

Hillary Clinton in her comments wasn't insinuating anything in them, it is what you inferred from her comments and she is not responsible for anything that anyone might infer from comments made by her - no one can be responsible for another's actions that are unreasonable and irrational.People had a gut-level, spontaneous reaction to what she said regardless of her intention. It was then her responsibility to clarify and given that the statement caused hurt and concern for Obama, a conscious, caring person would should be able to empathize and then offer up words of compassion and try to heal the hurt feelings. She chose not to do that.

Instead, in usual Hillary fashion, she defended her statement, blamed the Obama campaign and dismissed people's feelings just as you, BevD are doing now. Is that the leadership model you advocate? Her attitude is always, "fuck you" if you misunderstood me or I don't give a shit if my statement could be interpreted in some other way then what I intended. She blames the listener instead of figuring out a way to better get her message across. IMHO, this is a not an ideal model for a productive leadership strategy.

Well, Gee.

I dunno, I've been hearing a LOT about Hillary Clinton's "Negative Polling" and how so many people actively hate her.

I'd think the "chatter" on "websites" might be picking up on her, wouldn't you?

Has anyone checked it out in order to do a comparison? No?

Then I'd say folks here are spinning their wheels and engaging in rationalization.

MP - WOW - talk about someone drinking the kool aid! Too bad Hillary sold HERSELF short back in the day by marrying Bill ... she knew then he had a revolving door on his office ... she chose to hook her wagon to him. She has played the victim/blame game FOREVER ... and people with brains actually see through it now. 35 years of public service my fat fanny!!!!

Not to mention that Barack and Michelle have never been rich. It was only last year that they began to make any real money, and that was due to his book sales. Perhaps you had him confused with President Clinton?

Why would he become a lobbyist? He's the only candidate standing up to the PAC and lobbyist machine in this country. Clinton, on the other hand, takes more money from them than any of the original candidates--Dem or GOP.

It's clear that you haven't done your research on Senator Obama.

I like your post. I think it's time to stop talking about Hillary and focus on John McCain.

Bill and Hillary continue to try and instigate and keep the fight alive. And we enable them by accepting the invitation.

It's hard and no doubt they'll get louder and less rational but sometimes the best thing to do when your child throws tantrums is to stop paying attention.

I think it's a lesson the Clintons need to be taught.

The decision from Saturday's meeting is likely already decided, and the Clintons are likely to protest it no matter what.

After June 3rd, let's hope Obama has the number of delegates he needs.

But don't expect Hillary to go away.

I wouldn't mind recruiting more rational thinking Clinton supporters to TPM so that we can collaborate on how best to fight John McCain.

The Clintons thrive on division--they'll pick a fight after the fight.

Just walk away.

Wait,...sexism isnt deadly? Ever been to a battered woman's shelter?

Sheesh man, get a grip. Pick up the newspaper. Watch the evening news for God's sake before you make such uninformed statements.

The problem Hillary's comments present is that there is no way to construe that isn't insulting to Hillary Clinton: the 'innocent' interpretation is nonsensical, so one has the option of insulting either Hillary's intellect, her honesty, or her integrity.

Originally, the Obama Campaign had planned to use it's own funds for Security, but a number (and I can't recall how many) of specific, direct threats against the Senator and his family prompted him to request a Secret Service Protective Detail.

Yeah, he requested Dick Durbin to get him SS coverage. As campaigns go, it's pretty standard to get the govt to pay for it if you can to save funds for other uses. But you say "specific, direct threats"...

But a Department of Homeland Security official said there is no known viable threat against the senator "at this time." The FBI confirmed that there was no specific threat against Obama.

You don't just get to make things up.

WOW. I am aghast at the negativity your beautiful post has brought out. FWIW, I wholly agree with your points. Jack, Martin, Malcolm, Bobby... they do set a precedence. How many women have been assassinated in attempting to advance the (very important, BTW) feminist cause?

Seriously. Do we have to go back to Joan of Arc? (And she was tried, convicted, and executed; that's a little different, if no less horrifying). In the last century, I can only come up with examples of women who were imprisoned, abused, and forcefed. Alice Paul. Lucy Burns. Margaret Sanger. Far more have been, of course, mocked and delegitimized... but names don't hurt us the way sticks and stones do. I know I'm missing someone, and would appreciate the reminder, but the very fact that they aren't in the forefront of my mind kind of makes your thesis right there.