Rec'd!

And yes, this is what piggybacking the outrage looks like.

This is the part where I start cross-posting my comments from over at Digby's place.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/you-can-believe-us-by-digby.html

Senator Obama:

"This [question about the Iraq vote] raises a broader issue of the Democratic Party. I think it's important for us to stand our ground and take our licks rather than what sometimes is our habit, which is to cave and then whine about it afterwards, which makes us look not only weak, but also petty."

In that spirit, kudos to Senator Clinton for not whining about her Iraq vote:

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.”

She stood her ground and lost.

The fact that she felt confident enough back in February to dare voters who disagreed with her on this issue to choose a different candidate suggests to me that she expected to win and win handily.

Defending Hillary against sexism is laudable, but any suggestion at this late date that it is *the* reason for her defeat sounds both weak and petty to those of us who welcomed the opportunity to vote against this goddam war.

You can believe us or you can count the delegate totals.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/senator-clint-1.html

Well, Reality, you've hardened my resolve to respond to some stuff I was just gonna let go ...

She had no chance to create a "movement" (if indeed she ever wanted to) based around her historic candidacy.

She wagered she could breeze through the Democratic nomination process with a GE-oriented campaign. She had *every* chance to run the campaign of her choosing. She came into this thing with every advantage. What happened? She failed to understand that as much as we might despise MSM sexism we absolutely abhor the fear, uncertainty and doubt that have distinguished American life under Bush. As things stand now, she's got her "movement" but it's simply not a large enough one to win this nomination process. Deal.

I think she made some serious strategic errors ...

Yeah, like adopting positions that most Democratic voters disagree with. Do that, and go figure, we don't nominate you. In any case, that's called 'substance' - not 'strategy' ...

But let's not pretend that she was given even the slightest room to run explicitly as the first female candidate, because from the beginning the press used demeaning, sexist stereotypes with zero restraint.

I don't know. I'm a Democrat. Like most of us, as the early polling indicated, we were quite open to a female candidate. I resent the suggestion that we Democrats are such dupes of the press that we eventually fell for a sexist line that we were just too dumb to resist.

An otherwise valid media critique is being employed to once again practice the kind of self-marginalization that we're famous for. Enough already. If we don't all call bullshit on Hillary's latest claims made down in Florida we risk hoodwinking otherwise decent Democratic folks into believing that there's actually some kind of vast male-wing conspiracy afoot, when there simply isn't.

I understand that you have your reasons for dismissing my comments out of hand. Fine. My hope has been that Digby would finally deign to dig into the nitty-gritty of this process, give up the media critique for at least a day or two, and render a verdict that you could trust.

Hillary excoriated Obama for suggesting there might be anything to be gained by turning the page on the worn-out notion that what works best for the USA is to act all petulant and counter intransigence with our own bigger, badder intransigence ...

Those in the know call it the neener neener approach.

Heady stuff. Best left to experts and politicians ready to lead on Day One.

And thus we come around to the real conspiracy of the American MSM: Only stupid voters pay for stupid wars - so, who better to sell the stupid?

Throw in a heaping helping of sexism to divert the Dems from discussing the stupid war and it's game, set, match for the MSM.

Not this time.

I'm basically done here, but these guys and gals aren't:

The penalties imposed on FL and MI are matters of the democratic party, not great social issues in American history!

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/there-is-no-right-to-vote-in-p.php

Florida reporter Adam Smith just did an interview (first audio segment) with HRC in which she claimed that, although Harold Ickes and other close supporters voted in August 2007 in favor of the DNC's decision to strip Florida of all of its delegates, that's a decision that she, Hillary, does not agree with.

[Echoes of NAFTA, anyone?]

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/a-very-simple-reporter-questio.php

More to the point, Call Your Uncommitted Supers Now:

Tell them that you want the supers to decide for Obama NOW, not later. Tell them she's burning down the big tent and has to be stopped. Tell them she's de-legitimizing the party itself when she compares the process to Zimbabwe's election. Tell them she's setting up Obama for a fall needlessly, because seating all FL and MI delegates still won't get her the nomination. Tell her she's destroying the party itself for a generation or more to come. Tell them this isn't a popularity contest. It's now a matter of saving the Democratic Party from the woman who has become its worst enemy.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/call-your-uncommitted-supers-n.php

OK, I was kidding about being done. I'm really working hard here to pay homage to the beauty of single-word front-page posts like:

TOXIC

and

OXYGEN

I've done copied-and-pasted ad nauseum re TOXIC, but here's my take on OXYGEN:

It's Princess Di all over again. No joke. Same (lack of coherent) media plan. Same lack of an exit strategy. The "People's Princess" coulda been a contender. And that's no disrespect. I was in London for the procession.

I'd pay tribute to BLEEDING and ZOGBY, but c'mon, who doesn't know the Clinton campaign is bleeding money? And the only thing less earth-shattering is whatever it is Zogby may have to say about the state of the race ... as if *he* knows.

I think the author meant Sybil, but here's another log for the fire:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/cybil-clinton-redux.php

Wow. A stream of consciousness blog and thread. Recommend. How long can you keep it going?

x-posted from you-know-where:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/you-can-believe-us-by-digby.html

::Defending Hillary against sexism is laudable, but any suggestion at this late date that it is *the* reason for her defeat sounds both weak and petty to those of us who welcomed the opportunity to vote against this goddam war.::

It also denigrates Clinton's very real achievements in this primary - if the only reason she is losing is because of sexism, it means she never had a chance to win in the first place. In other words, she was completely unelectable from the get-go, and people were absolutely right not to vote for her in the primary because she was and is a sure-fire loser for the general.

Arguing, on the other hand, that she lost the primary because of bad policy/tactical decisions argues that she had a legitimate shot to win, and she was as electable as anybody else.

But I honestly don't think it's about defending Hillary with the "Hillary lost, so I'm voting McCain!" crowd. It's more about latching on to a convenient excuse to hate Obama, for whatever reason. This observation was brought home to me after I heard a Clinton supporter rail for 5 minutes about how the use of the word "periodically" proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama was a vicious misogynist of the worst order, then, in virtually the same breath, refer to Michelle Obama as a "stupid bitch". No to mention that these supposed defenders of respect towards women plan to vote for a man who has publicly referred to his wife as a c*nt.

If we (and I include myself in this) really want to battle misogyny and sexism in the party and in the media, we will shout just as loudly about attacks on Michelle Obama as we do about attacks on Hillary Clinton. It's the same principle at stake.

tam1MI | 05.22.08 - 2:53 pm | #

Hey folks, I say we turn this instead into a thread about Britney Spears' hit single, "Toxic."

Personally, I think it's underrated, just because it came out late in her oeuvre. Production values extremely good. Which is not to say that Madonna couldn't do it better.

Problem solved. Forgot to follow up the purge with a little front page chaser:

-Hagee gets tossed

-DOJ's gonna investigate the Siegelman prosecution

-Karl Rove subpoenaed

Ahh, feelin' much better now.

wow, my weak, bitter, uneducated, racist mind is blown... i actually think that counting the votes in MI and FL (a re-vote would be preferable) is a fundamental principle of democracy that trumps DNC rules, but hey, what do i know? i'm sure that a 48-state nominee in the closest primary election in our lifetimes will not be controversial and fully embraced by the american public, especially the ones in FL and MI...