Appearances of the word “I,” “I’ve,” “I’ll,” or “me” in Clinton’s speech: 90 out of 2237 words.
Appearances of the word “I,” “I’ve,” “I’ll,” or “me” in Obama’s speech (me appeared once): 25 out of 2451 words
Appearances of the word “we” in Hillary’s final speech: 17 out of 2237 words.
Appearances of the word “we” in Obama’s final speech: 36 out of 2451 words.
I think a lot can be learned about the difference between the two campaigns by observing the simple difference in style, and while Bobby Jindal and McCain and others chuck out claims that Obama is substance free and just a good speaker, it is important to recognize that words matter (although I can’t believe we still have to debate this after the fateful inclusion of the phrase “axis of evil” in Bush’s speech years ago). There is a deep difference in the rhetoric from Obama and Clinton the other night, and I would argue it is emblematic of the difference between the two campaigns and their approaches.
I don’t want to go too deep in the psycho-babble, but I think it is not an unreasonable claim to state that many people who found themselves to be die-hard Clinton supporters identified personally with Clinton. For many of the feminists and older women who made up Hillary’s unwavering core of support, a rejection of Hillary was a rejection of themselves- they saw Hillary being subjected to the kind of abuse that they themselves have suffered, they identified with the concept of the glass ceiling and identified with much of the real and perceived sexism. In many cases, they saw things that I simply would not see (not that example, as even I could pick out what was offensive there, but check the whole archives and surely you will see some things you did not pick up), because of who they are and what they personally have experienced. In short, when Hillary lost, or they listened to some jackass on CNN debate whether it was appropriate to call Hillary a bitch, it was a personal loss or as if they had personally been called a bitch. When some idiot with a website named Balloon Juice said something nasty about Hillary, it was perceived as an attack on them. When the nonsense about Obama flipping off Hillary surfaced, it was perceived as yet another slight against the individual Clinton supporter- “He flipped me off!”
For Obama, many of the supporters identify with a movement, a need for something different, a need for change, and a sense of community. The Obama campaign recognized this difference, and masterfully used social networking to build a vibrant community. When Clinton made her fateful “white people” or “RFK assassination” remarks, it was an outright breach of community and societal norms (the latter RFK comments striking a nerve because this was a long-held fear of the community), which would help to explain why Obama supporters recoiled in horror at the remarks. When Republicans tried the hackneyed old “appeaser” nonsense, it was like the folks in the community who opposed the war in 2003 and beyond were being called traitors or in league with the terrorists again. When Hillary seized upon the “bitter” remarks for political advantage, it was as if the entire community was under assault for being “elitist.”
The question before us is how to merge the two campaigns and their supporters to beat McCain, but I would argue that while right now, tensions are hot, the fact that the Obama campaign has in large part been fueled by a movement mentality, there is a distinct possibility that it will be easy to quickly assimilate many of the Clinton supporters (and I dislike the negative connotations of the word assimilate, but I am hard-pressed to come up with another word). A piece I read yesterday discussed just that starting to happen:
Clinton supporters find evening filled with graciousness
The whole evening had been filled with similar graciousness and kindness, Stevenson said.
She had arrived at the building with Humphrey, and as they were taken to their seats, people kept stopping to hug them and thank them for being there.
Laughing, she spoke of how she decided she needed to make a trip to the restroom before Obama’s speech. Again, people kept stopping her to shake her hand.
“Finally, I just had to wave and leave or I would have missed the speech,” she said.
All of the other Clinton supporters received similar treatment.
In his speech, Obama had so many kind things to say about Clinton that her supporters often found themselves on their feet, applauding with the nearly 20,000 Obama zealots inside the arena.
It won’t be easy, and it is going to take some time, but Hillary has already signaled that she is going to ramp down things on Saturday at an event for her and her supporters. She started to do that yesterday with her glowing and admirable remarks in front of AIPAC, and for now, at least, it would be smart to simply let Clinton and her supporters have some space. They are hurting, and when you factor in that for years people had just assumed Clinton would be the next President, this is an especially tough loss. Even though I don’t identify as personally with Obama as many Clinton supporters do with Clinton, I know I would need some time had things gone the other way.
As a closing thought, this was just something I tossed around in my head last night while trying to fall asleep. Of course this does not apply to every person in either camp, but for the purposes of my amateur analysis, you have to break people into groups. As to how accurate the assessment is, I don’t know- you tell me. It is quite possible that those on the other side may view things just the opposite- it is the Obama supporters who identify with the candidate (Obamessiah is not an unfamiliar term to you all by now), and the reverse of what I am stating is more accurate. I think, however, that if someone were to perform a rhetorical analysis of the major speeches by the two candidates (something I have not done- I just counted a few words), I would bet there is some evidence there for my conjecture.
Gary Farber
I suggest Clean Slate Day.
Michael D.
Even wierder, their speeches were EXACTLY THE SAME LENGTH!!! Eerie!
Davebo
Michael, look again.
Notorious P.A.T.
Sounds right on to me. I don’t know of any Obama supporters staring at YouTube videos like the Zapruder film trying to find instances of Hillary making obscene gestures. As for me, I figure that even if he’s a disappointment as president, Obama has built a big movement and pumped some life into our moribund political landscape.
Josh E.
What happened to the “I can no longer rationally discuss the Clinton campaign” tag?
El Cid
Yeah, Republicans hate leaders basing their so-called leadership on these fancy-pants speeches and whatnot, which is why they think that noted policy wonk and fiscal policy genius Ronald Reagan’s visage should be carved into the bright side of the Moon.
gopher2b
Hillary lost a primary and then cried. How is pointing that out sexist? If Barack had lost Iowa and cried, he would have been done. Finished. It’s a double-standard, but not one that disfavors women.
John Cole
I didn’t think this was irrational.
Krista
Stewart had a lot of fun with that last night.
But yes, many of Clinton’s supporters and many aspects of Clinton’s campaign really rubbed Obama’s supporters the wrong way. However, I don’t see what there is to be gained by being ungracious. I think the vast majority of Clinton supporters are reasonable people who are very disappointed that their preferred candidate didn’t win, and they do not deserve to be taunted or mocked.
Obama’s being really gracious — in that speech, he said some very kind things about Clinton. If we have so much admiration for Obama, does it not make sense to emulate the characteristics that we find so appealing, such as his class and grace?
ImJohnGalt
How about “integrate” instead of “assimilate”.
And I know it’s petty and pedantic, but it’s “breach”, not “breech”.
Josh E.
That was my point. Just poking fun at the 180-degree pivot.
Otto Man
Or “mission accomplished” or “bring it on” or “crusade” ….
Karmakin
The entire Obama campaign is about We dialog. I’ve been watching what you talked about for a while as well, and it’s true. In fact, most politicians talk in the I vernacular overwhelmingly. Obama is the exception (and such a rare exception). It’s the community organizer in him. He does it VERY naturally as well. It’s not an act.
I’d actually be willing to bet that he talks that way even when not really appropriate. I do the same thing actually.
SGEW
Another cogent analysis, Mr. Cole. This sort of post is the reason I’ve been reading Baloon Juice for so long now (even when I was nauseated by your (then) Republican opinions).
However, I’ll pick up and expand a single point: I admit to being someone who personally identifies with Sen. Obama, as we’re both multi-racial, hapa Haole, ivory-tower/community-activist, liberal legal professionals from major urban centers.
(It’s a smaller minority than, say, middle-to-late-aged, caucasian, suburban females, I’ll grant you – but I’m sure that my fellow M.R.H.H.I.T.C.A.L.L.P.F.M.U.C.s are a significant proportion of the “Obamaniacs.” All seven of us.)
So saying, I have never, ever taken attacks on Sen. Obama as personally as many Clinton supporters have. There’s probably a good doctoral thesis here (re: personal transference through hetero-normative misogynistic paternalism vs. racialized “dog whistle” anti-intellectualist separatism), but I’ll leave that to someone who doesn’t have anything better to do.
In other words: Yes, many of the demographically similar Clinton supporters have displayed a much greater sense of personal defensiveness than even the most personally aligned Obama supporter. Hands down.
Grendel72
Honestly, if Clinton supporters expect to have their asses kissed to keep them from voting for the Republican candidate we’re better off without them. If integrating Clinton’s supporters means going along with DLC tactics, we’re better off without them.
McCain is a really weak candidate, and those Clinton supporters who are capable of rational thought and are actual progressives will come to support Obama on their own. Treating Clinton supporters like emotional timebombs does nobody any good.
cbear
Would I be out of line if I posted this over at NoQuarter?
Breschau
This entire time, the problem has not been with the candidates themselves nearly as much as it has been with some subset of the candidates’ followers.
And I think Clinton’s primary problem in the blogosphere has been that, while there has been some blatant sexism and rudeness from various blog commenters who support Obama, there are whole web sites that have been just plain old whacko in their Hillary support.
I mean – have there been any true counter-points to Jeralyn or BTD or Taylor Marsh or *shudder* Larry Johnson in the Obama blogosphere camp?
Now, while 90% of the country probably has no idea that TalkLeft or NoQuarter even exist – *we* do. And that’s been tainting the conversation for months now.
b. hussein canuckistani
“Integrate” is better, but “Assimilate” works well with the Obamabot slur. Especially if Axelrod gets up on tv in borg gear and tells the Clinton supporters “Your culture will adapt to service…us”.
On a snark free note, it always struck me as interesting the way Obama’s “Yes We Can” slogan got morphed into the more authoritarian “Yes She Can”. It just sounds old and weak compared to the original. Maybe McCain can use it.
SamFromUtah
How about “integrate” instead of “assimilate”.
I had the same thought. That first day of busing might be kind of tense, but I think it’ll work.
Karmakin
At the end of the day, this all comes down to authoritarian vs. communitarian ideals, actions and beliefs. And oddly enough, the communitarians won this time. That like NEVER happens.
w vincentz
When passionate supporters of their candidates (both Hillary and Barack) recognize their zeal has been real and heartfelt, those passions will take a little time to heal.
One candidate won, one didn’t. Passion doesn’t easily disappear. That said, my optomistic view is that given time, unity will be found.
Barack’s emphasis on the “we” harkens to “we the people”.
That includes ALL of us.
So, come on board Hillary supporters. Our arms are open, when you are ready.
I’d also like to apologize personally for some things I’ve said in the heat of passion. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, I’d be most appreciative. On reflection, though I didn’t agree with some of the things your candidate said, I shouldn’t have reacted in and offensive manner.
Let’s ALL unite behind Barack so that “we the people” can reclaim our country.
jibeaux
It’s “breach”. “Breech” is when the baby’s in the wrong position.
If you weren’t a sexist man, you’d know that.
It completely misses the point of the original. Which makes it perfect for McCain.
I think that you’re right about many Hillary supporters. What always struck me as illogical, though, is the sort of underlying assumption that she could make sexism sort of disappear. That because they got passed over for a promotion they deserved in 1977, Hillary would fix that, or at least vindicate them somehow. So you saw a big generational divide, with younger women fully cognizant of sexist treatment Hillary was receiving, but with very different opinions as to whether that made her a better candidate for the office.
Genine
Right on, John! I’ve been thinking the same thing for a while. Especially as I have female friends that are Clinton supporters and actually cry about stuff that happens with Hillary and they need to “mourn” and whatnot. It made me tone down my rhetoric toward Clinton, somewhat. At the same time, it made me angry because I perceived her as playing with those emotions for gain. But on further thought, if some women identified with Clinton THAT heavily, I don’t think it was anything intentional on her end. Such results cannot be helped when dealing with identity politics, which is why I do not engage in them.
There have been many times I’ve seen or heard Clinton supporters and what was said about Hillary. They often use the word “I”. They say, “I won’t be treated that way!” Even that video with the woman yelling about Obama being an “inadequate black male” also yelled about how she’s sick of being a second-class citizen and now the DNC is making her nothing. I was way more sad about that video than I was angry. The DNC was making a decision about Hillary and her campaign, but many women saw it as the DNC making decisions about them.
So when I talk to my friends who are Hillary supporters, I am very respectful and keep my opinions to themselves as its a touchy subject. When I talk about Hillary, I am talking about them. Its a hard thing to juggle.
Most Obama supporters I know are involved in movement mentality and identify with more abstract concepts, which is why I do not know any Obama supporters that have a personal identification with him. They just like his ideas and what he represents. I think, because of that, a lot of people can be integrated into the movement and the campaign- it doesn’t exclude them.
I really think a lot of the talk of Obama supporters personally identifying with Obama is a lot of projection. Of course, that’s just my opinion. I am sure there are people who are playing identity politics with Obama and identify with him personally in some way- but I don’t know such people, personally.
Anyway, excellent post!
Frank Jacobs
Good thoughts, John, and a good articulation of some things that had been on my mind for a while now.
I’m looking forward to the next few months with great hopes of reconciliation. The press, blogs, and so forth have been saturated with the term “kumbaya moment,” a term I thoroughly all despise for its sarcastic, pseudo-ironic, smarmy, postmodern disdain for all things suggestive of sentimentality. Nevertheless, if they want to give it a name, fine. Let’s just get there, somehow.
This is important to me not just in terms of the general election, but because many of the Hillary supporters are our friends, our parents, our siblings, and our spouses. I could no more disown them than Barack could disown his latently racist grandmother, to borrow the phrase.
swellsman
Speaking of comparing the different styles of the two campaigns . . .
I distinctly remember nearly a year ago, watching clips of both Obama and Clinton giving stump speeches to their supporters. I was with my girlfriend, and I paused the DVR and told her to watch and see if she didn’t see the same difference I did.
“Look at how Obama moves and gestures,” I told her. “See how inclusive he seems, like he’s trying to bring his audience along with him?” She nodded.
“Now watch Clinton. Look at how she paces, and how she chops the air with her arms when she’s making a point. She seems to be lecturing her audience.
“It it’s even more noticeable with the sound turned off.” We watched the clips again with the TV on mute.
That moment stayed with me, because I thought it was so emblematic of the real differences between the two campaigns. Clinton seemed to be selling herself the way politicians have sold themselves for decades: Vote for me, I’m the best candidate, let me explain how I’m a much better product than the alternatives up here. It was just a very top-down, let me convince you, and now that I have made the sale you must vote for me.
Obama, by contrast, ran what seemed to me a very bottom-up campaign: We can do this together, if we work hard enough and we’re dedicated enough and we believe enough, we can make America great again; let’s work together to make that change. Obviously, what he was saying was that we can make this change if you vote for me, but his appeal seemed to make people feel like they were voting for themselves, rather than just voting for him.
I would say, too, that this very different approach to voters — considering them part of the team, rather than a bunch of customers to whom you have to sell a product – is probably why the Obama campaign found it so naturally easy to make use of all the new networking tools modern information technology puts at one’s disposal, to devastating effect when it came to organizing in all 50 states.
Just sayin.
cleek
i can honestly say that i identify with almost nothing in Obama. he’s a black lawyer who can comfortably address 20,000 people; i’m a white programmer who is sincerely dreading having to give a 10 minute presentation to a group of 6 other programmers next week. he’s religious and not shy about expressing it; i’m an atheist who has to hold his tongue in most situations lest i unintentionally offend someone’s beliefs. he has an international family; i’m upstate NY white-trash by heritage. he’s spent much of his life trying to improve his community; i spend my free time bitching on blogs and taking pictures of my cats. he went to an ivy league school and later taught law; i’m a slacker who slept through most of my undergrad CompSci degree at a medium-sized tech school and was happy to get out with a gentleman’s C.
about the only thing we have in common is that we’re both skinny men who suck at bowling. i’ve never once thought that i should or could find anything in him to identify with. in fact, if he was any more like me, he wouldn’t be anywhere near the Presidency.
so, um, no. anyone who would think i support him because i identify with him would be dead wrong.
Lee
Like many Clinton supporters, I don’t like Obama … I can not longer recognize, nor do I like the Democratic party anymore … therefore, I wish Hillary would run as an Independent. It’s worked for other candidates … like Joe Leiberman. At least as an independent democracy would prevail if Hillary won the popular vote … again.
cleek
great idea. your first task is to find an elected position where the winner is chosen by popular vote.
Clutch414
Hey Cleek…where in upstate? Syracuse here.
rob!
yeah, that’s been a smashing success. surely more politicians will follow Lieberman’s sterling example.
sheesh.
unless your post was all sarcasm, Lee, i can’t fathom why you would dislike Obama so much if you are/just recently were a Democrat. by Clinton’s own admission, their policy positions are very, very similar.
but you really hate Obama that much, that’s your choice. i just hope you don’t go the Revenge route and vote for McCain. because that would be taking the rest of us along with you, and I don’t wanna go there!
Davebo
So Lee, you are happy with Joe Leiberman and his actions as a member of the Joe Leiberman party?
Sounds like someone who drank the Operation Chaos Kool Aide to me.
cleek
Corning, Syracuse/Liverpool, Glens Falls/Hudson Falls.
w vincentz
Lee,
I wish I could say something to change your position. I hope hillary supports Obama as she said she would. Our party would reunite and prevail.
If Hillary runs as an independent, the divisions will continue and the GOP will retain control of the corrupt government they’ve held for far too long.
Let’s unite. There IS power in “WE”.
Dan
“Obamessiah” was used SPECIFICALLY to dismiss the movement, not the man.
It was a way to say that things are NOT going to change and if you are waiting for your messiah to deliver change you are delusional. And since things are not going to change anyway, give it to Hillary.
The Other Steve
What do you not like about Obama?
Is it that he’s a radical fringe liberal? Or is he too conservative like a Republican?
Existenz
Another thing to note. Chants commonly heard at Obama rallies: “Yes We Can”.
A chant commonly heard at Clinton rallies: “Yes She Can”.
That tells you all you need to know.
Dan
She’s not running as an independant. Where is the money going to come from? Lee? The big-money people are not walking away from the Democratic party. 3/4 of the people that voted for her will back Obama and the rest is split between the ones that will come around eventually and the ones that never will.
crw
I think a distinction needs to be made here between rational Clinton supporters who just thought she would be a better vehicle to fix the government and/or advance a progressive agenda, and the nutcases. We need not, should not, indulge people’s private neurosis, individual demands, or irrational biases. To do so is to repeat a grave error; it elevates the private over the public weal, and perpetuates the notion that public life should cater to selfish desires instead of common goods.
So, to the sane folks who simply made a different political judgment, I agree. We need to be gracious, give them space, and keep in mind that we all share a great deal of common ground. We all want to pull the country back from the disastrous brink, restore respect for law in the highest offices of the land, and restore some notion that government is supposed to work for all.
Hell, the same insight applies to sane Republicans and small-c conservatives. We may disagree on the specifics of what we want government to do, exactly, but we can all agree that there are a few core competencies, such as national defense and disaster response, where the government must excel. And further, we can recognize that putting McCain in office and keeping the current incompetent cronies in power would be detrimental to that end.
On the other hand, we have the nutcases who have various personal hang ups. They wont vote for a black man. They think Barack personally is a misogynist despite all evidence to the contrary. They’re lost in a lala land where they think Democrats are traitors and America haters. They would rather sunder the country than deal with hurt feelings and bruised egos because of a few rude supporters online. Whatev.
We should not cater to these people. They are sick. They do not really, in their bones, grasp the role of government or the awesome responsibility of political involvement. We need to stop warping the public sphere because of their individual issues. In short, they should be ignored or mocked as needed until they grow up a little, and join the rest of us in the reality based community.
LanceThruster
Good-bye to all that
HILLARY CLINTON: So that’s it? Good-bye and good luck?!?
LANCETHRUSTER: I don’t recall saying good luck.
The Other Steve
It’s interesting, but I generally really hate “movement politics”. I have a natural adversion to the entire idea. I hated Howard Dean for just this reason.
But for some reason, I don’t feel that with Obama. I think it has something to do with the way he speaks, as John notes. Obama keeps referring to things like our country, we, and so on. Howard Dean was all about me… my country, my party, etc.
This adversion to movements is part of what bugs the Hillary people, although I think mostly in their case it’s that they are authoritarian and prefer the person who is next in line. The idea of a young upstart jumping ahead in line annoys them.
SGEW
Hey, if he can be a Crypto-Muslim and a crazy Black Power Christian and a Godless Commie Atheist all at the same time, he can be both a radical liberal and a sell-out right winger. Right?
b. hussein canuckistani
I’m not skinny, but I am a foreigner, so I have about as much in common with Obama as you do. I still find him the most impressive politician I’ve seen since Pierre Trudeau (that’s 30 years ago for those who don’t know him), and I’ll feel much better about the world if he wins.
proseandcon
This has been one of my talking points for months. Contrast their respective speeches on the night of the Iowa caucus and also pay attention to Obama’s weaving of “you” and “we” through the campaign. It’s subtle and potent.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
The communitarians got organized, not as in “we’re-an-anarcho-syndicalist commune and I didn’t vote for you so how’d you get to be king, eh?”, but actually organized in a good old fashioned ruthless political machine fashion.
The sheer fricking competence of the Obama staff and everyone associated with the campaign just amazes me. I think this was a political “Black Swan” event (c.f. Taleb, this isn’t a racial reference), that we are very lucky to be witnessing and participating in.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
swellsman that was well phrased and an astute observation, IMHO. Thanks.
John Cole
Think about what you just wrote and then reflect back on Obama’s interview in which he discussed Reagan changing the trajectory of the nation.
crw
This – this is the fundamental difference with Obama. Combine this with his open government initiatives and you can see he’s trying to really change the political system. It’s about giving us the tools to understand what government is actually doing, to have direct input on the process, and to connect with each other and find common ground. He may fail. People have a lot of disagreements and there is a metric shit-ton of bad blood out there. But to me, this is his main appeal. I don’t care about the messianic transcendent bullshit. I do care about opening up government and making it easier for people to hash out their genuine political disagreements. I do care about setting a tone of respectful debate that stops looking for excuses to write opponents off and starts looking for ways to find common ground, no matter how slender that ground may be. Because, to me, that’s the path to ending the lock the Haliburtons and PNACs and other assorted assholes have over the system
Rick Taylor
It has been striking me how narcissistic the Clintons are recently; it explains a lot in the campaign. I can now understand what John found so grating in that Christmas commercial she ran, and that line in her stump speech where she talks about unseen voters and she says “I see you” sounds weird to me now. This is going to make it difficult for her to campaign as unreservedly for Obama as she promised she will, even if that’s her intention. Hopefully she and Bill can stay out of the spotlight for the most part from now on, though I kind of doubt it.
John Cole
The original title to this post was NarCicero, but I decided that would just piss off too many people.
Adrienne
or..
“last throes, “with us or against us”, “stay the course”, “mission accomplished”, “mushroom cloud”.
Tyro
Don’t forget her attempt to appropriate “Yes We Can” by turning it into “Yes We WILL!” It sounded both awkward and juvenile in its attempt to “one-up” Obama.
It’s not like this hasn’t been done before: Dole ran in 1996 offering a “Bridge to the Past” which, by the Democratic convention, led to Bill promising a “Bridge to the 21st Century.” For Bill it worked and by the time the campaigns were in the midst of the GE, the Dole campaign was trying to forget they ever promised a “Bridge to the Past” in the first place.
Whammer
ABQ — interesting point about this being a “Black Swan” moment. I hope you’re right.
In other news, now that we think everybody has a chance of getting along on the Dem side of the aisle, what do we think about President Obama throwing a bunch of Bush admin officials in jail?
The Other Steve
w00T! Armando linked to this and is claiming John is a misogynist because he couldn’t see the sexism inherent in the attacks.
:-)
John Cole
Who cares what Armando thinks?
I am to the point now, after watching them this election, that I don’t trust their legal analysis anymore.
Debbie
There has been so much sexism in this campaign and of course those who are guilty don’t even see it. Just take the insistence that (she) someone concede a nomination that they have ended in a tie, that needed party bosses to push the eventual winner over the top (that won’t really count until the convention), that actually won more than the winner at the end.
The reason this is sexist you ask? Well, Teddy Kennedy didn’t concede to Carter until the convention. Bill Bradley didn’t concede to Al Gore until July (lost by a mile) even Jesse Jackson, he didn’t concede until the convention in his fight…oh, but Hillary must concede when “the man” tells her to. This whole election and how the press, pundits and bloggers have covered has been a reall eye opener to me. Women are treated badly, period. Their laugh, their ankles, and their clothes, are conseidered fair game…Wow! There is going to be alot of work to do from Obama and his Obamabots to heal these wounds. Underestimate it at your peril
John Cole
Nobody wanted her to concede because she was a woman, they wanted her to concede because there was no way for her to win except to have the supers overturn the pledged delegate count and in both of the cases you listed above, the person went on to lose. Carter to Reagan, Gore to Bush. It wasn’t that she was female, it was that some people learned from divisive primary fights.
His skin color, his mannerisms, his lapel pin, what he eats, how he bowls, etc., were all targets this campaign. A veritable festival of misandry! Why don’t you go back to Talk Left, go through the archives and count the comments in which Hillary supporters flayed Obama alive because of “the way he looked at her” or some other such bullshit.
Ben
To use a quote from the Tim & Eric show, which I’ve wanted to use but haven’t found an appropriate situation:
“C’mon Armando, it can’t be that easy!”
Now we just need to find some balding guy named Spagett to suprise him.
binzinerator
I hope your analysis is on target. Hillary sure has made an inordinate and intentional effort to polarize and to goad her hardcore supporters into a frenzied resentful no-compromise state of mind, even when she knew she was increasingly unlikely to win, and the more unlikely her chances the more she pushed the emotional buttons of her hardcore supporters. The frothing up of her supporters at the Michigan/Florida thing is an example, and Exhibit A is her non-concession speech, done in an underground media-blackout environment so as to better manipulate those who have identifed so closely with her they see her loss as a personal affront.
She knew what she was doing. Even the RFK ugliness was intentional. It was her message, not accidental gaffes.
Like any demagogue, Hillary knew exactly how to jerk the emotional strings of her followers. She wanted them frothing angry, hysterical, resentful, and full of the righteousness of unjust victimhood.
Emotional volatility of her supporters was the goal — she used it to try to pressure the supers to give her the nom, and later (and still on-going) to threaten her way onto the ticket. She was hinting that those people would follow her, even if they metaphorically had to shoot down their own long-term best interests by splitting the party. She played on their emotions to where some of them are angry and resentful enough to do it.
And damned if it didn’t seem like she was willing to fill up some of these angry people with a burning sense of injustice, right to the edge of violence. I seriously began to wonder if a collateral bonus of her strategy was to make it more likely the certifiable Sqeaky Frommes or the fanatic Sara Jane Moores of her base would finally go over the edge. Everyone knows those kind of people are out there, part of every politician’s base. She worked to pack hers full of emotional high-explosives.
I hope you’re right because she’s the only one who can defuse the bomb she built and I’m unconvinced she really wants to.
Genine
Debbie you can conflating the media and the Obama campaign. That’s YOUR problem, your mistake.
Also, if you listen, you would know that most of the calls for Hillary to drop out were due to her type of campaign she was running. It was awful and detrimental to the Party. Sure, there are those that had sexist reasons for wanting her to drop out. But those same people didn’t want her in the race to begin with.
The huge problem is that like some people are conflating Obama and the media, they are also conflating the past with the present. I know women personally who think this situation is the same as when they were passed over for promotion due to sexism, paid-less, etc.
Sometimes there are women who don’t get the job because they can’t do the job or didn’t present sufficient reason for them to get the job over someone else.
Those are the breaks.
John and many others on this blog, male and female, have seen and acknowledged the sexism directed at Hillary Clinton on a number of occasions.
Ben
You slur us with an insult and then tell us to heal wounds.
I question whether you are speaking in good faith, Debbie.
Swift Loris
For many of the feminists and older women who made up Hillary’s unwavering core of support, a rejection of Hillary was a rejection of themselves- they saw Hillary being subjected to the kind of abuse that they themselves have suffered, they identified with the concept of the glass ceiling and identified with much of the real and perceived sexism.
I’m a 66-year-old female Clinton supporter. I’ve been fortunate that my life hasn’t been greatly affected by sexism, so I don’t identify with it personally. What has outraged me about the abuse she has suffered has been the sheer unfairness of it. If I were a man, I can’t imagine not feeling he same way. And I’m sorry, but I have the distinct sense that John’s speculation is not so much a sincere expression of sympathy for Clinton supporters as a way of avoiding responsibility for not having spoken out about the abuse.
Brachiator
I agree with you that a lot of Clinton supporters saw themselves in Hillary, but I don’t think that either Hillary — or some of her supporters — were necessarily feminist warriors. Many of them were frankly in love with Bill Clinton and wanted to see the lovable, sexy rogue back in office. These women could just as easily see themselves as Hillary or Monica (“Bill? Yeah, I’d do him.”).
Others were deeply invested in the romance novel imagery of Bill and Hillary as soulmate co-presidents. These are the same women who love a TV show like “Grey’s Anatomy,” where the main female character is obviously just as skilled as the chief of surgery — because why else would he fall in love with her?
Still others wanted to believe in the fantasy that Hillary was another example of a wife who might really be the power behind the throne, without whom her husband could never have succeeded. Hillary’s life had nothing to to with glass ceilings and everything to do with rising to power simply because she was the consort of the Alpha male.
This kind of identification has a lot more to do with narcissism than with either sexism or feminism. This is also why, for example, many of these women could not psychologically admit Michelle Obama to their little social club, dismissing her as un-American or elitist even though her educational achievements were remarkably similar to Hillary’s and her social background far more modest.
And as you have pointed out, you can also see the narcissism, the diva drama in Clinton’s speeches, which is all “what about me” and “what do I want.” She even began her campaign talking about how she was going to sit in the White House, alone, and work hard for the people, but never about how she was going to work hard with the people.
The RFK remarks struck a nerve not just because it was about community, but because it was a crass insult. A few Obama supporters were also RFK supporters. Many others remember that day. One of my history teachers, in Los Angeles, was a Bobby Kennedy supporter. Her heart was broken and she had to take time off from teaching when he was murdered. A good deal of my own interest in politics was a direct result of her having been inspired by RFK.
And Obama, like RFK, seeks to inspire a renewed sense not just of community, but of a nation built on mutual responsibility and support. I remember a comment in a blog thread from a young person who was inspired by Obama because “nobody ever asked me to do something for my country before.”
And Obama’s speech, in Iowa early in the campaign, and most recently in Minnesota, is redolent of the speech in Henry V, where the king appeals to the soldiers to fight alongside him, not just for him or for themselves:
Genine
Sexism has been pointed out and discussed on this blog a number of times. I can’t think of anyone on this blog who would deny that there has been sexism directed at Hillary. The debate on this has mainly been about how much it has affected her campaign.
Jim
The Talk Left crowd is simply out of their collective minds. Period. Any slight to Hillary, no what the content, is laid at the feet not just of sexism, but misogyny (God, I hate how that word has been abused and misused). On the other hand, they rail against Obama supporters who question Bill’s analogy of Obama and Jesse Jackson, or Hillary’s highlighting of her support among whites and are in shock and disbelief how anyone could find those things racist. Simply put, in their deluded little minds, misogyny is the one and only reason anyone can be against Hillary. That’s it. If you don’t like Hillary, you’re a misogynist. End of Story. They are demonstrating one attribute that I do find most distressing about the left of center mindset: a need to play victim when you don’t get your way.
over_educated
I went through that thread at TL, and it really is silly. most folks have pretty much bought into the thesis: “Hillary lost because Obama supprters are sexists.” I mean how do you respond to that without just shaking your head sadly? And shaking your head sadly just infuriates them more, because now you are being “condascending.” It’s quite maddening.
Rick Taylor
It appears BTD has noticed this post and written commentary on it. I haven’t read it; I’ve only breifly scaned Talk Left headlines. For the most part the headlines are encouraging encouraging; they’re concentrating on legal issues more than the election for now. *wonders how a proper track-back is done*
Debbie
I think it interesting John, you say
“Nobody wanted her to concede because she was a woman, they wanted her to concede because there was no way for her to win except to have the supers overturn the pledged delegate count”
You have no problem with Supers taking Obama over the top. He won alot of pledged delegate by ridiculous Caucus contests, that don’t represent the electorate fairly and you know it (unfair to Military, elderly, swingshift worker). Actually, there has been non-partisan fair analysis that makes the point. Proof…Obama wanted Puerto Rico to be a Caucus not a primary, because he knew if people actually voted in a primary, he’d lose it. We are not all fools, you know.
She won: California, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylavania, New York, Michigan, Texas….it is mind boggeling that your side dismisses all these wins. We could be in big trouble, and you should be ready to explain away if the unthinkable happens and we get a Republican President when this was a no-brainer election for the Democrats.
I know you all want us to go away, you and your co-horts have been very rude and vicious. It is really sad!
Should Know Better
In 2006 I saw author Kim Stanley Robinson discussing climate change with Gregory Benford. Ideas for changes or programs that the government could implement to address the issue kept getting met with a response from Benford that amounted to “but the government won’t do it” to which Robinson replied “we are the government!”
The discussion that followed was interesting, especially because of the reaction from the audience. It loved that message, I felt it as well. I don’t know if the time was just right for it or if the urge to believe in the idea of a government of by, and for the people is always strong, but I’ve kept thinking back on that discussion while watching the primaries.
Danothebaldyheid
Debbie – That isn’t because she’s a woman, it’s because Democrats are shit scared that they’re going to lose the election again, after it being a sure thing for so long. In the reverse situation (with Clinton having more delegates) I guarantee that the same thing would be being demanded of Obama. In fact, he would have been left for dead a long time ago.
If you look for sexism, you can find it just about anywhere. I’m British – we’ve had a woman as Prime Minister and sexism didn’t just go away – for some it’s sadly as strong as ever.
America does seem somewhat more prone to it, but that’s ’cause of the fundamentalist right who want women in the kitchen and out of the workplace. Challenging that by electing the wife of your favourite President does not make it go away. But electing the party that rejects fudamentalist conservatism does help make it better. The rest is up to you – fighting in your own community for those women who are downtrodden and ignored and against the men who denigrate them.
Use that anger to confront those who genuinely promote sexist mentalities – the mainstream media, bullying men – not those who are also striving to make the world a better, fairer place like Obama.
John Cole
No, I don’t have a problem with them taking him over the top, nor do I have a problem with them taking her over the top. That is, in fact, what they are there for, although more accurately they are there to make sure there is a candidate after the first ballot at the convention, as well as to ensure that should a bombshell be dropped, a flawed candidate is not given the nod.
What the supers were not there for was to overturn the will of the people as expressed by pledged delegates (the way the Democrats set up the race). That is what Hillary wanted to do- run all the races, have Obama be the clear leader in pledged delegates, and then have the Supers say “never mind, we want Clinton” and all flock to her. That was NEVER, and I say again, NEVER, going to happen.
the rest of your comment is just sour grapes, arguing about the make-up of the system, when your candidate A.) did nothing to change the system prior to the election and B.) chose not to contest half of the contests. Now you want to go back and claim they “shouldn’t count” because your preferred candidate didn’t do well in them.
Kids making excuses for cheating at monopoly are less brazen.
John Cole
How on earth could you characterize our interaction as “rude and vicious?” And this comment thread is our first interaction, since I had to approve your comment a little bit ago.
Conservatively Liberal
Or Operation Iraqi Liberation? ;)
I lived in Clinton, NY, outside of Rome, and I moved to the Northern Lights area of Syracuse in 1980 (on Wolf Street, west of Crouse-Hinds), up by ‘Shit Lake’, which is fed by ‘Shit Creek’. Beautiful area! You can watch the birds walk on the garbage in Shit Creek, and the plumes of smoke off of the chemical plants on the west side of Shit Lake looked beautiful with the setting sun filtering through them.
God I was glad to get the hell out of that place. Great people, but the town sucked.
I haven’t tried it, but when that show comes on I bet I could connect the vacuum cleaner hose to my TV and clean my carpets. Instead, I just change the channel until it is over because I’m afraid that it would suck the fibers right out of my carpets.
If ‘she’ is a real Clinton supporter, she should ask herself why she is blaming Obama and his supporters for Hillary failing to win. As Hillary said herself, if it’s too hot then get out of the kitchen. Then she proceeded to complain about how unfair everything was to her while dismissing any criticism of her or her campaign and its many failures.
While Hillary had to deal with sexism, Obama had to deal with racism. They both had unfair problems from external forces that they had to deal with. Obama dealt with it, Hillary didn’t.
While Hillary has the right to take this to the convention, she does not have the right to ignore the reality of what may very well happen if she does, nor does anyone else. Right now, Hillary knows that she has the right to carry on. But the party also has the right to let her know that if she does and is unsuccessful and/or destroys any chance for Obama this fall, her career in the party is over.
The final decision is for Hillary to make. In the end, it is all on her shoulders. If she proceeds to Denver, while I won’t like it, it is her right to do so. She knows this too.
Let her make her decision, based on the reality of the situation. If you can’t respect that, then it becomes your problem.
Not mine.
Ben
Debbie,
It so happened that Obama won more pledged delegates as well; had there been no such thing as superdelegates, he still would have won.
Also, how do you have the nerve to say that we dismiss Clinton’s wins when you do the same to Obama’s state wins. I live in a caucus state, and whenever people say that my vote shouldn’t count, I view that as them literally giving me the finger.
Healing is a two way street, Debbie. Can you at least make a little bit of an effort on your part?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Debbie,
I think maybe you are over-interpreting many of these things as being driven by sexism when much of the very disgusting and reprehensible abuse which has been directed towards Hillary is a manifestation of something more general which is:
politics is a nasty business, which often brings out the worst in people, especially the politics of seeking the Presidency because the stakes are so high.
Was it sexism when Ann Coulter called John Edwards “a faggot”?
Was it sexism that motivated people to portray Mike Huckabee as a banjo-picking hillbilly?
Was it sexism that inspired people to call John McCain “the crypt keeper” and make fun of his limited range of mobility (he has trouble raising his arms, for example) as a result of the injuries he suffered in Vietnam.
…and that is just from this year. In New Hampshire during the 1972 contest Ed Muskie broke down in tears defending his family from vicious smears published by a GOP supportive newspaper, and his campaign was over, he was finished. What about the lies about John McCain spread by the Bush camp in the 2000 South Carolina primary? The examples just go on and on and on…
For what it’s worth, it seems to me that the Obama campaign (as distinct from the media) has been very respectful of Senator Clinton and has made a point of couching attacks on her in political terms (i.e. focused on policy) rather than using personal attacks, in a way that made this a relatively clean campaign compared with the other ones I can remember going back to 1972.
The media does not have comparably clean hands, but Obama does not control the media, and it seems unreasonable to me to expect that an underdog campaign would spend its resources repeatedly attacking the media. Senator Clinton spent much of this campaign telling us that she was the only candidate ready and able to stand up to the slime which we expect from the GOP attack machine. How are we to reconcile that claim with the idea that she needed the Obama camp to attack the press in her defense?
It seems to me that expecting the candidate and her campaign to be able to handle this stuff on their own is an expression of how far we have come in terms of our gender expectations in presidential politics, not the opposite. Now female candidates are expected to have to fight through the muck and mire the same as the male candidates, instead of having two different sets of rules, segregated by gender. What more do you want?
Conservatively Liberal
Shorter
BigPup Tent Democrat: “John Cole is a blind, Obama Kool-Aid swilling misogynist.”There, I saved your brain cells, but you owe me now.
Tom in Texas
I found this to be an interesting study of three main democratic candidates.
John Cole
I know, it is raucous good fun being told what I have “inadvertently revealed,” and PLUK and MYIQ make appearances in the comments.
Ben
Yeah, it’s a show that it took me a long time to like. I just thought that the “Armando” quotation sort of made sense in this situation. Although the character Armando, who was only in that one sketch and had just two lines, already has more integrity than the “Big Tent Democrat” Armando, so maybe I shouldn’t make the comparison.
Conservatively Liberal
Maybe its the guys that run the show that suck. They have had many tries at their own versions of shows on Adult Swim, but every one of them flat out sucks. Every time one comes on, I change the channel because it is that bad. Some of the skits can be funny, but you have to suffer through a lot of suck to find the gems. I can’t take that kind of abuse…lol
‘Tom
goes toblows the Mayor’ is another craptastic mess of theirs.Sulis
Please. The women’s movement was all about community, and it gave us Roe vs Wade, rape crisis centers, battered women’s shelters, health centers and many of the other social structures that women have needed over the years. The analysis of patriarchy and sexism was not about individual problems; its about institutionalized power and the organized solutions to that.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
It is even more lopsided than that. The rules we are now hearing so many complaints about were written back when surrogates and ideological allies of the Clintons controlled the party and had the power to write the rules any way they saw fit.
Before this year it was conventional wisdom that caucuses heavily favored establishment insider candidates, because a newcomer’s campaign would never be able to master the complex intricacies of them, or have the patience to slog through the multilayered process. Primaries were instituted in place of caucuses in the wake of the 1968 elections precisely to open the nomination up to outsiders and dilute the influence of party bosses.
In retrospect it is stunning how much Obama’s campaign stood conventional wisdom on its head this year and out-organized the old pros, beating them at their own game.
Jess
John, to his great credit, has consistently spoken out about misogynistic attacks, and has called out commenters for inappropriate remarks. People have said some brutally critical things about Clinton and her supporters at this site, but, with only a few exceptions, they were the same criticisms that would be dished out against male candidates that behaved in similar ways.
Clinton herself noted that politics is a brutal business, and that those who cannot stand the heat should stay out of the kitchen. Why should she be held to a different standard?
Debbie
First of all, I am a true believer of “one man, one vote” and Ben, you’re right, contrary to what I consider to be the more fair way to handle an election, it is currently the way it is. What has made this so difficult is that we are left with a tie! A split party! And unfortunately alot of gray area’s. Nothing decisive happened here and I feel the same internal feelings I felt in 2000. Why can’t those that have been so dissmisive of Clinton supporters, and how this process has left us, have any empathy for us. I WILL vote for Obama, I’m still working on my Husband (the last Olbermann special comment threw him over the edge)
Ben – you are right, healing is a two way street and I will pray for unity. But, the scorn shown to Clinton supporters from the progressive bloggers has really taken me aback. Ko’s used to be a site I loved to visit…fighting the same fight…..wow it is truly insane over there. This has been a tough loss, and unfortunately I am far from over it. I will be listening to Obama very closely…he will be my guide. I probably have to turn off MSNBC, stay off the blogs, and cleanse myself of all the ridicule I receive when trying to promote and defend my candidate.
John, the press has been a welcome arm of the Obama campaign and they have used it (Keiths special comment sent to reporter that Friday) I will say my experience here today has been even handed and a more intellectual conversation of disagreement..I thank you for that!
John Cole
With all due respect, you are just seeing what you want to see. Was the press working for Obama when we watched Rev. Wright for 24 hours a day for 2 months? Did Sidney Blumenthal not spend the entire election disseminating hit pieces on Obama through the right wing media?
Tom in Texas
A summary of the author’s thoughts:
And no, I don’t believe that Obama can snap his fingers and make it so, but the point is he speaks as if it is. It is effective and subtle.
kind of an off white
John, Debbie, is this even a disagreement worth having? The media sucked eggs in its (“their” for the pedants) coverage of both, okay? They went easy on the fresh-smellin’ new kid and the sexism was more overt than the racism, but even her detractors had a grudging respect for her iron will, and his “enablers” never heard a whisper campaign they couldn’t amplify.
Seriously, fighting about who the media favors (“favor,” see above) is like arguing over whether black NOLA residents or National Guardsmen had it worse under Bush.
Debbie
With all due respect, you and I both know that if Hillary had a 20 year relationship with these pastors she would have been skewered. The racist rants have been so bad that there is no doubt if the roles were reversed, she wouldn’t have even been considered as a candidate. And I believe the Dems against Obama, played softball with his weaknesses, I felt it was done more out of duty to the party, to know what would be coming at us in a General campaign……it’s disgusting, but it’s coming. I just wasn’t in the mood for this fight…This election is too important. But it is, what it is, I hope you’re ready.
P.S. please don’t call me a racist for what I said above…I actually think it is more racist to misinterpret an honest point and discount it as racist. Where I come from there just isn’t all this sensitivity about race…we’ve gone beyond it and we are able to disciss it more openly.
Nora Carrington
I agree with the general point John is making about the emotional tenor of the two campaigns. I’m a 52 year old white *Obama* supporter, originally for Edwards. When Edwards dropped out and I had to choose between Obama and Clinton, I picked Obama because he seemed to care more about the Constitution and because I thought the DLC move to the middle — while successful electorally — had been bad for the Party and bad for the country.
That said, I disagree somewhat with the analysis that says that those who object to the sexism dished out against Clinton — *and against her defenders* (not all of whom necessarily supported her campaign) — do so as a consequence of personal identification. I don’t have that much in common with Clinton. I object to the sexism dished out by Obama-supporting bloggers because it’s wrong.
I’m going to work hard for Obama and vote for him. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to continue to call out sexist bullshit when I see it. The benefit, long term, for the ugliness of the campaign — and I’m thinking not just of the sexism exposed in the hearts and minds of supposedly progressive “allies” but also the racism expressed by Clinton and by some of her supporters as well — is that both will re-energize the feminist and anti-racist work that got put on hold by the desperation we’ve all felt just trying to hold on to some shred of our Constitution these past years.
But the kumbaya moments are all just empty palaver if it doesn’t fucking quit, you know? And there needs to be more than just “ooopsie, passions got a little high around here.” There has to be atonement, and commitment to self-examination and change, and then, you know, *change*.
Debbie
Kind of an off White (what does that mean) You are probably right!
Nerf
I can’t even read Talk Left anymore, just bonkers. They say the same talking points but I can’t get anyone to actually elaborate on their complaints, other than to complain more, bitch about Obamabots and how Obama is a fool and we are all idiots and how they are sick of being called names. Ummmm oookay. step away from the keyboard!
I’m from Waterville originally, CNY is well represented on the Juice!
Genine
Yes, a lot of the womens’ movement was/is about community. A lot of good things have come out of the womens’ movement.
But some of it isn’t so good. One side isn’t all roses, you know.
Genine
Obama WAS skewered and many a pundit and journalist speculated that Obama’s campaign was done. Many Democrats said the same thing.
I don’t think anyone ever said people were against sexism due to identification. I think the high emotions and extreme attachment to Clinton and that she represents all women is due to identification.
I am not a Clinton supporter yet I call out someone when they’re being sexist all the time. Krista does it, John does it, Rick does it and others. And I don’t think any of us would claim identification to Clinton.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I thought there was a double standard at work in the media. Sexism was tolerated so long as it was not too blatant and over the top and was something you could walk away from with a well timed apology if necessary, but racism was understood to be radioactive – say something that sounds like the KKK, and the next day you would have no job, no career, nothing (I’m speaking here of the “respectable” networks, not Faux News).
The networks put out plenty of racist crap but it was almost always in quote marks coming from another source, or took the form of double standards (Wright vs. Hagee), they rarely let it come right out on the set. Sexist comments however were winked at (Chris Matthews, I’m looking at you) as long as they didn’t cross a line that was defined pretty generously.
IMHO, YMMV.
Sulis
Genine- I agree that the women’s movment has had weaknesses. The refusal to address race and class on equal footing to sexism is one of them. The third wave has done a better job with this and the intersectionality of oppressions. The thing is, though, the women’s movement was about analysis and issues, not individual problems. Women’s individual experiences formed the basis for the analysis and the building of community. I would hate to see what women are feeling right now just get “assimilated” into electoral politics. I do want Obama to win this election, and then I want the left to take a step back and really think about what happened here and what we can learn from it.
Fledermaus
Oh good gawd, could you at least read about the ’68 primary before you demean actual acts of sexism.
uptown
I’m a white male and Clinton supporter. I used to support Obama a long time ago, but I figured out that he was just another middle of the road Chicago style politician. Kind of reminds me of Tony Blair, too. So I went with a known politician who’s policies I supported (except that Iraq vote).
It’s fine with me if you don’t support Clinton, but to say that her supporters are different because, heaven forbid, they’re the same sex is just asinine. Open your eyes John, you’re a man who’s supporting a male candidate, but complaining about women supporting a female. That’s the basic definition of sexism.
John Cole
This made no sense whatsoever.
John Cole
I am not talking about co-opting the women’s movement, I am talking about the necessary integration and assimilation needed to, you know, get Obama elected. In fact, that will be a large part of what happens in the private talks between Obama and Clinton the next few weeks- how will they integrate their staffs, how will her advisors be treated and what role will they have, etc. The big thing Clinton supporters have been holding over Obama supporters is the “Hey! There are a lot of us and you need our votes,” so it seems quite silly to get upset at an Obama supporter (me) stating “Hey. We need their votes.”
As I noted, assimilate may not be the perfect word.
Genine
What do you mean “what really happened here?” The sexism? Yes, there has been sexist attacks on Clinton. And sexist attacks hurt everyone and lower the discourse and ourselves. How did it effect her campaign? My argument would be not that much. Because people swayed by sexist attacks on her, wouldn’t have voted for her in the first place. But I’m sure you probably feel differently.
There has also been racism in this campaign as well and, I could argue, that racism played a much bigger part in Obama’s campaign than Clinton’s. I’m not sure of final numbers of if someone compiled all of this in one big report, but various polls I have looked at indicate more people were willing to vote against a person more on race rather than sex.
Hopefully, we’ve learned to be more understanding of each other and that the Oppression Olympics is not the way to go. Under the current consciousness, whether you want to call it the Patriarchy or just call it bullshit- we all need to work together. We need to build on our common ground, not look for differences and and practice exceptionalism.
But I feel confident that, those who want to, will come together in peace and deal with the real problem- which is not each other.
uptown
John,
Why I are you even discussing this? The one thing worse that a sore loser is a winner who can’t shut up about it. Move on buddy, you still have to win an election.
John Cole
In one contest, and I forget which one, it was noted in the exit polling data that race was a big factor for many voters and when it was, they went to Hillary. The same poll showed that sex was also a factor for many, and when it was… they voted for Hillary.
I am so tired of all this crap. I just wish for once, Clinton supporters would acknowledge the reason she lost the race was because Obama ran a better overall campaign, and she ran a crappy one at the start of the race.
dancinfool
As a 60-something woman, I have to state that while I hated some of the sexist remarks thrown at Hillary (I’m talking to you Chris Matthews) I was never a supporter for her candidacy. My first choice was John Edwards, and when he dropped out, I went with Obama.
John Cole
Joan Walsh:
Sulis
Oh John I know you were talking about the nuts and bolts. I was really stealing your word- assimilated- to talk about some of the larger issues of how the anger many women are feeling might be turned into analysis and organizing and not wanting that energy to get lost in an electoral campaign. And Genine- “what happened here” refers to the sexism that was exposed. Not that it cost her the race- I don’t believe it did- but it did show an ugly underbelly of the denigrating of women. I won’t belabor- I like the tone here a lot better than some of the other blogs.
crw
I agree with this sentiment. And one of the many things I think all of us with progressive tendencies should look at is how we can reshape the media, beyond electoral politics. I feel it’s going to take a change in ownership models and editorial control to really shake things up in the world of mass communications.
Brachiator
That both candidates had poor media coverage is a nice bit of mythology. Friends of Bill and Hillary were nested within the media tighter than a Tuzla sniper. Old friends like Mary Steenbergen, Ted Danza and others could always pop in a “Vote for Hillary” reference in the middle of a celebrity interview. Hillary found ways to conveniently show up on Ellen, Larry King, or the David Letterman show the day before a primary. Early on, Joy Behar on “The View” was a vociferous Clinton supporter, as well as a vocal advocate of the “we must have a woman, now!” camp. Gail Collins and Paul Krugman at the NY Times and Eleanor Clift at Newsweek were staunch pro-Hillary pundits, and Sean Wilentz of The New Republic wrote one of the most biased and distorted pro-Hillary pieces in the history of journalism.
Sorry. You’re just wrong here. The whole point of the Wright controversy was to attempt to portray Obama as non-mainstream and hence unacceptable without regard to Obama’s own views.
So even though Rev Wright had been part of the post-Monica atonement team of ministers assembled to absolve Bill of his sins, neither Bill nor Hillary were held accountable for any of Wright’s views. Bobby Rush was a co-founder of the Illinois Black Panther Party. Bill Clinton had personally endorsed Rush (over Barack Obama) in a 2000 congressional election, and yet no one believes either Bill or Hillary to be a stealth radical. Obama, on the other hand, gets smeared as being a radical because he served on the same board as William Ayers, who was a radical when Obama was 8 years old. And neither Bill nor Hillary ever said anything about how ridiculous these charges against Obama were.
Similarly, even though McCain ultimately had to disavow a couple of pastors, no one ever accused him of sharing their views. But the gotcha game that only applies to non-white candidates for high office is that if the media can even show you in a room with a radical or former radical, then the black (and probably Latino) candidate must also be a radical because in the end, you know, all those people are the same. And also, of course, crazy white ministers (and a few black ministers) can blame hurricanes and terrorist attacks on feminists or gays, but no politician associated with them will be hounded out of office, but crazy black ministers and anyone associated with them just might be a menace to society.
This is doubly ironic since former Newsweek editor Ed Klein tried the same kind of scurrilous guilt-by-association nonsense in his trash “biography,” The Truth About Hillary, only here the smear was that since Hillary had a long-term association with radicals, feminists and (gasp) lesbians — and might even be lesbian herself — she was obviously out of the mainstream, Not One of Us. And had Senator Clinton become the nominee, this bullshit would have been trotted out again full force, and was always a sub-stream of the right wing media.
But instead of standing with Obama against these smears, Hillary let Obama hang out to dry by himself. And it is simple hypocrisy for Clinton supporters to ramp up some lie that Obama got special or extra soft treatment from the media in this regard.
Oh yeah, and no reporter ever asked Hillary whether she ever did drugs or sold them, even though every drug dealer I ever knew at the Ivy League school I attended were white, and although I was not a Clinton contemporary, many of the people I know who run in similar circles have pasts that have been cleaned up so that they can better pass public scrutiny.
kind of an off white
Debbie:
I don’t even know why you’d think anyone would. You’re saying what, that people don’t freak out as much over blacks expressing anti-white sentiment? Well, yeah, that’s true for reasons that hyper-earnest lefties will be glad to discuss with you in detail, but long story short, our racism affects them; theirs has no comparable effect on us. Also, when they throw epithets around, they’re usually referring to a power structure, not us personally.
Not that there aren’t racial determinists of all colors, but you just can’t compare the Nation of Islam to innumerable Southern officeholders, y’know? Plus NoI offed their only savvy rep when he evolved past that shit, so goodbye mainstream appeal.
I just hope the Wright/Pfleger/Hagee/Parsley sideshow gives people second thoughts about the position of unearned privilege religion has in our political discourse. There’s simply no reason for the words “faith” and “values” to be intertwined, and if it takes some old jerk doing hack stand-up (I mean, honestly, a routine about how much funkier black marching bands are than white ones? Carlos fucking Mencia wouldn’t steal that joke) to make the point, then I call that a net positive.
Oh, and my handle’s a line from that running SNL skit Eddie Murphy used to do as an inner-city version of Mr. Rogers. He’s on the phone trying to sell a baby (the result of a one-night stand with a Puerto Rican girl) on the black market, and “well, he’s kind of an OFF white” is his response to an unheard question. Like a Bob Newhart routine but really sick. Anyway, since I’m a white who’s kind of off, it seemed apropos.
Wouldn’t be the first time! It’d be the third or fourth.
Ben
I’ll take your ideas to heart Debbie. I can’t argue too much more today, but thank you for making some interesting points.
Genine
Oh, yes. I agree with that. Sexism and racism has been exposed. Its been funny for me to talk with people who say they won’t vote for Obama for racist reasons. Those without racist reasons come right and say their reasons no matter what. Those that have other reasons are like ” He’s- Oh, uh…umm… well… he’s… you know…umm… INEXPERIENCED!” And they say the last part like they discovered something.
Personally, I laugh at it. But I recognize the fact that its sad, too.
But anyway, about the womens’ movement. Its a nice thing. However, it has come to my attention that the womens’ movement needs to concentrate on its own biases as well. I know they’ve always been there. No one’s perfect. But this election has uncovered by eyes to a lot of stuff.
kind of an off white
Brachiator, I’m doing Clinton supporter outreach today, so I don’t want to get into it with you, but I can’t let this go:
I’ll let the “you’ve gotta be fucking kidding me, using that as your lead-off example” factor slide; what matters here is, Ted Danson’s work post-Cheers, especially on Damages, is far too compelling to be confused with that of the Ay-O, O-ay guy.
1jpb
It looks like TL (BTD) is paying attention.
Somewhere in the back of my mind there is still a small fascination with the idea of a BTD-JC bloggingheads–even if though the event could be a train wreck (maybe (a little) because of this possibility.)
I will note that BTD’s comments were drenched in moral equivalence. For example:
BTD’s “own view is that these were two politicians, doing what pols do. None was better than the other in their behavior.”
I think that BTD has some good political instincts. But, his comments demonstrate a liberal weakness that makes independents nervous. Conviction is a good thing, some things are bad, and some things are worse than others. Moral equivalence is weakness of thought; something I would expect BTD to avoid, even though he’s acting like a devotee in this case.
In fact there is a huge difference between the political capacities and effectiveness of HRC and BHO. On multiple occassions I tried to tell the TL crowd that BHO is a tough political fighter. Real fighters get what they want, they don’t jump up and down claiming to be a fighter, and then fail to get what they want.
Further, BTD’s complaints conflate general sexism in the culture, with specific attacks of one candidate against another. Cole did write about a list that identifies certain (and possible) sexist attacks on HRC. But this is different from the attacks directly from HRC against BHO (I would have added, “… as far as I know”) BTD unwittingly, because of his dependence on false conflation, makes the point that HRC was the ONE candidate to push community and societal norms.
And, it is noteworthy that BTD made the following false statement:
“[Cole] did not see a pattern of behavior there that “breach[ed] community and societal norms.””
It’s a bad sign when a BTD starts cutting and pasting comments from one paragraph and applying them to different concepts in another paragraph. This is uncharacteristic of BTD.
And, I will note here (since I’m banned from TL) that the accuracy of my warnings at TL about HRC’s reliance on bluster and tyranny rather than persuasion and leadership have been confirmed beyond doubt by her non-concession speech, and subsequent actions. Although, this should have been clear for the last few months since she continued running with a political fratricide strategy after it was impossible (short of a BHO disaster, in which case she could have gotten back in anyway) for her to win. Anyway, this is all water under the bridge: McCain is the focus now.
Swift Loris
Clinton herself noted that politics is a brutal business, and that those who cannot stand the heat should stay out of the kitchen. Why should she be held to a different standard?
Uh, how is she being held to a different standard? Is that what you meant to say?
As far as the kitchen is concerned, she planted herself solidly in the middle of it and didn’t complain all that much about the sexist attacks.
With regard to John not speaking out about sexism, I really wasn’t referring to tsk-tsking on his blog. I would have expected to see a major, very loud uprising among progressive supporters of both candidates against the media’s misogyny, which is primarily what Hillary’s supporters have found so painful.
Swift Loris
The Talk Left crowd is simply out of their collective minds. Period. Any slight to Hillary, no what the content, is laid at the feet not just of sexism, but misogyny.
—
I went through that thread at TL, and it really is silly. most folks have pretty much bought into the thesis: “Hillary lost because Obama supprters are sexists.”
For the record, I’m a regular reader of Talk Left, and I don’t recognize either of these descriptions. People certainly complain about sexism, but I can’t recall seeing anybody suggest Hillary lost the nomination because of sexism; nor have I seen anybody attributing nonsexist complaints about her to sexism. (Granted, I don’t always read every comment.)
I can’t even read Talk Left anymore, just bonkers. They say the same talking points but I can’t get anyone to actually elaborate on their complaints, other than to complain more, bitch about Obamabots and how Obama is a fool and we are all idiots and how they are sick of being called names.
It really depends on how you ask. I don’t know what the formula is, but there have been folks who have been able to elicit detailed, well-reasoned recitals of objections to Obama, without any rancor toward the questioner. So it’s not impossible. It’s probably best to avoid any suggestion of “outreach to Clinton supporters” at this point, though. They’re in no mood to be reached out to.
Jeralyn and BTD have made it clear that the blog is now officially supporting Obama, BTW.
binzinerator
What tie? You mean a candidate who finishes a race with over 120 more pledged delegates than the runner-up is in fact tied?
Why is there this demand for empathy, respect, hell I don’t know what from this small segment of Clinton supporters? Beg your pardon, it’s not mine or anyone else’s responsibility to validate your existence, empathize, feel sorry for, welcome you or cheer you up. If people do anything along those lines after this campaign or even in life in general it is out of their own graciousness. Why is there this insistence, then, that you are somehow owed something — by Obama, by his supporters, or incredibly by an entire segment of something as abstract as the blogosphere?
And why is it that anything that doesn’t fulfill what ever it is you want is labelled ‘scorn’?
As as far as real scorn goes, of course some people are going to show you some honest-to-goodness scorn. When you assert second place is a tie, when you demand people have to rub you nicely this way and that because you deserve it, and then you are shocked shocked! because some don’t — jeezus h. on a stick, what can I say? Maybe what you keep insisting on has in fact caused some of that scorn.
I do not empathize with you. I’m not into denial or victimhood. My job on earth does not include validating your existence or your grievances. I feel no obligation whatsoever to do so. I have no obligation to do so.
Fuck Obama
Whats wrong with the American people? Why can’t they see through this guy? His real name is Mabus. All he does is talk about ‘Change’, but nothing about how he is going to go through with it. He speeches are the same every time, I don’t see him changing anything, not for the better good anyway. It seems like he is just going to stop the progress of our goals as a country together. ‘Change we can NOT believe in’. I don’t believe in him. Change is not always good, especially what this guy wants to do. His ideas for change seem to be a dream or wish, but not a reality. From the beginning, I saw that this guy fits the prophecies of the anti-christ, HE’S THE DEVIL. I don’t care what this guy has to say, he’s a muslim. No matter what he says, his father and step-father is a proclaimed muslim and by that is every muslims eyes he is also. Read his book. Why are we, a country under God, not allah, and during a holy war against these people, are we going to let him be our president. He is anti-american, he’s been going to that church for years, Wright was his mentor, and he is going to tell us that non of that has effected his beliefs or thoughts, BULLSHIT! His excuses of why he won’t wear an American flag, put his hand over his heart, and other non-american activities, is ridiculous and offensive to our country. If all of this would have been made known to the American people prior to all this, I am sure he wouldn’t have made it this far. All of the media supports him and the way the media portrays him is sick. He plans on defense and the war are unrealistic and is just going to set back and contradict what we have been have been fighting for in the past few years. He will allow them to basically win and reorganize to start all of this again. Them muslim extremists are set on their goals about the West and Israel. This war isn’t going on because of Bush, them muslims have been fighting against us since biblical times. They aren’t going to stop, this war is necessary, and the people who don’t think so are blinded by their imaginations of peace. I see him siding with the muslims and terrorists.
Turbulence
With regard to John not speaking out about sexism, I really wasn’t referring to tsk-tsking on his blog. I would have expected to see a major, very loud uprising among progressive supporters of both candidates against the media’s misogyny, which is primarily what Hillary’s supporters have found so painful.
Why would you have ever expected anything like that? I hate the media. I loathe the media. I think that guys like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews helped bring about half a million civilian deaths because they thought it would get good ratings and because they just didn’t care. These people are sociopaths. And you want me to get upset about their sexism? We’re talking about people who would kill and eat disabled children live on tv if they thought they could do while looking serious. What the hell did you want me to do? I can’t hate these people anymore than I do — I’ve cut them out of my life to ensure they don’t one penny from me — I denounce them and spew hate and vile against them — what the hell else do I have to do before it meets your standards?
1jpb
Swift Loris,
You expected BHO supporters to have expressed a “major, very loud uprising” against the media’s misogyny.
Why?
It is reasonable ask BHO supporters to reject misogyny. But, we haven’t had time to lead protests against the few high profile media examples of misogyny.
Perhaps there would have been time if HRC and her very close surrogates weren’t doing their best to portray BHO as the black boutique candidate, claim to be the victim of reverse racism (hence self-relating with those susceptible to worries about white folks losing out to the affirmative action candidate, and simultaneously reminding folks of the “black candidate”), claim HRC and McCain have experience while BHO has one old speech, Shame on BHO (never mind that HRC was involved in meetings promoting NAFTA), implying hard working whites won’t vote for BHO, hyping the Weathermen and Wright, not Muslim as far as I know, stay in race because of RFK’s assassination (which occurred during a TOTALLY different nomination process, this is not at all a relative precedent for the current process), non-concession speech and effort to prevent party unity. This would all be bad stuff from wingnuts, but from HRC this kind of political fratricide is despicable–it’s worse and more meaningful for a family to sellout each other rather than some opponent. There is no equivalent treatment of HRC by BHO.
BHO supporters have been very busy responding to attacks directly from HRC. And don’t forget that BHO didn’t run a campaign based on retaliatory gutter attacks.
To be sure neither side was perfect in the past, but now it’s time to move on to McCain.
kind of an off white
Well, you got one thing right.
Genine
John’s mentioned sexism in a few of his posts, I think. He’s spoken out against it and how bad it is, in addition to admonishing a number of commentors.
He has also mentioned the racism against Obama in about the same manner. Why not find that “painful” as well?
And I find a number of blogs that are vocal about the sexism Hillary faces and about the racism Obama faces.
This is something that has really pissed me off about some (note the word SOME) feminists is that unless you denounce something according to the script in their head, then you’re not really an ally or a progressive or something. That’s totally fucking bullshit. For example, Obama had rejected and reprimanded some remarks a minister had said about Clinton. But he didn’t use the words sexism or misogyny so Obama is terrible for not doing that.
Heck, with the Shakesville “Watches”. Last I heard the Hillary sexism watch was at 104 and the Obama racism watch was at 46? That was a week ago and it might have changed, but really? 46? If I even half-assed tried to participate in this game, I could come up with more than that! And I could bitch and moan about certain blogs not speaking up enough racism and how “painful” it is.
But I don’t play that game. I don’t think anyone at Shakesville or a number of other blogs don’t care about racism because they don’t say certain things. I have a lot of my AA friends and family that do think that way and I thinks its equally ridiculous.
This whole “I think you’re sexist/racist because you’re not saying the specific things I want to hear” is really sad.
Do you know who I think is racist? People that discriminate, disrespect and harm due to race. Who do I think is sexist? People that discriminate, disrespect and harm due to sex. Who do I think is misogynistic? Those who, discriminate, disrespect, harm, and hate women.
Swift Loris
He has also mentioned the racism against Obama in about the same manner. Why not find that “painful” as well?
If racism had been on display in the media (which is what, you know, I was complaining about) in equal measure to misogyny, it would be equally painful. I’d be interested to know about examples of racism on, say, MSNBC that were on a par with the misogyny of Matthews, Olbermann, Shuster, et al.
This whole “I think you’re sexist/racist because you’re not saying the specific things I want to hear” is really sad.
I do hope you’re not putting words in my mouth. I don’t believe I suggested anything of the kind.
Swift Loris
stay in race because of RFK’s assassination
Sorry, but this is enough to make me stop reading. Nobody who actually believes Clinton said or suggested or implied this has anything serious to say, as far as I’m concerned.
Turbulence
If racism had been on display in the media (which is what, you know, I was complaining about) in equal measure to misogyny, it would be equally painful.
Swift Loris, you wrote that I would have expected to see a major, very loud uprising among progressive supporters of both candidates against the media’s misogyny, so, for the fourth time, let me ask you: what specifically did you want John Cole or the people here to do that would have qualified as a progressive uprising against the media? Moreover, why on Earth do you think such an “uprising” would have made any difference at all?
Genine
No, I’m not. Did you say those words? No. But that’s what it seems to boil down to. Maybe you don’t share that thought, but its out there and it pisses me off. Nothing can make certain people happy.
I’ve seen many bloggers(male and female) talk about Clinton and how bad the sexist attacks against her are. But, I’ve seen many feminists bitch and complain that the silence on sexism is deafening. Huh?
When I mention so and so said something the usual complain is “But he didn’t say (insert what they think the appropriate phrase is here)” therefore he(whoever) is coddling up to sexists or taking advantage of sexism or whatever. The behavior of some feminists have really turned my stomach. Oh, another thing is if you’re not “angry” enough you’re not a feminist or a feminist ally. That’s real bullshit there.
As for racism, there has been quite a bit of it. Now I realize that some people may not realize some things are racist and so it goes over their heads, but its racist nonetheless. Like I said, if I wanted to play the Oppression Olympics I could come up with a lot of examples of racism, even on MSNBC. My local television station has even said some stupid things, so I can just imagine the rest of the country if I were to do a google search.
But I don’t play that game. If there are people that want to feel slighted because someone didn’t say something to their satisfaction, its their right to do so. Me? I have better things to do.
1jpb
Swift Loris,
You wrote:
If racism had been on display in the media … it would be equally painful.”
Were you pained by the media coverage of exit polling in recent states showing that HRC was supported by the vast majority of the voters who said that the race of a candidate was an important factor in their decision? Keep in mind that most of BHO’s black supporters have voted for plenty of white folks, this is different than white folks who refuse to vote for a black man because he’s black. This certainly had a much greater impact on the primary than a few high profile media folks making sexist comments. Did you ask HRC to speak loudly, and reject any votes from folks that were voting against the black man? Or, is that no big deal compared to a few sexist comments on the teeveee?
And, what about WJC repeatedly, and without proof, claiming to be the victim of reverse racism? And, all of HRC’s race, assassination, and Muslim commentary, do these bother you? These are a lot closer ties to HRC than a few media situations are to BHO (who is a politician, not a media mogul.) The media things you’re upset by are more closely related to the media’s repeated mixing up of Osama and Obama (of course HRC phone bankers were caught doing this, so this can also be tied to the HRC campaign, then there is the Insight claim that HRC folks gave them the madrassa lie about a year ago.)
I will note that this debate about who’s the biggest victim is useless (BHO’s avoidance of accepting victimhood, even when justified, is admirable, perhaps HRC and her supporters could learn something.)
It’s time to move on to McCain.
1jpb
And then there’s the elephant in the room.
Isn’t it possible that the intensity behind a lot of these misogyny claims comes from misplaced and repressed anger? Seriously, is it possible that we know someone in HRC’s life who has a record of using and taking advantage of women in more substantial and hurtful ways than making a few sexist comments on teevee?
Where is the outrage against the real sexual harasser in HRC’s life?
Conservatively Liberal
Just as quickly as you dismiss this one persons concern, in turn you have just allowed for that person to dismiss your concern. This is a two way street. If you want people to listen to you and your concerns, you darn well better not dismiss their concerns out of hand and still expect to be listened to.
It ain’t gonna happen.
John Cole
I don’t think people who dismiss the RFK comments really truly understand how toxic that was to members of the AA community.
Conservatively Liberal
What I find mind-boggling is that they don’t even allow for the possibility that her words, if not deliberate, could be misinterpreted by anyone. This is just flat out denial of the concerns of Obama supporters, and in the next breath they are angry because we don’t take their concerns seriously.
That is what makes it nearly impossible to deal with Hillary’s more rabid supporters. They will only see things the way that they see them, and everyone else is wrong. No matter how many facts you set in their lap, their candidate has never made a mistake. Or if they (grudgingly) admit that she has made mistakes, this is not one of them.
This is a mindset that prevents any realistic discourse from taking place. Until they get over this problem, reasoning with them is going to be impossible.
1jpb
Good point about AA community.
And, it’s not crazy to think that HRC was suggesting that some big disaster (though non-lethal) could allow her to overtake BHO’s insurmountable pledged delegate lead. This is especially reasonable because the RFK election process was completely different than the current process, so a comparison of the two timelines/schedules is useless. And, it is interesting to note that RFK was not certain to win. The party bosses controlled the nominations for many states, and they weren’t going with RFK.
However, I will concede that my original RFK reference was glib and sloppy (see I can be contrite, is HRC taking notes.) I have consistently commented (at Althouse) that I always assumed that HRC was thinking of a political disaster for BHO, not a lethal one. Back when this was “the issue” I repeatedly noted (at Althouse) that her comments revealed that she knew she wasn’t going to win without BHO imploding. And, this is why she was using the “kitchen sink” and wingnut attacks as she looked to destroy BHO.
Darkrose
“We’ve gone beyond race”?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Just as an FYI, you may want to avoid saying that if you ever meet an actual black person, because a lot of us hear that as “I’m okay with those colored people as long as they act like white folks.”
And given what you’ve said, you’re an American.
There is no place in the United States that is anywhere close to being “beyond race” Obama’s nomination is a step in the right direction–but it’s still only one step.
Darkrose
Yes, thank you, John.
Every single member of my family who’s old enough to remember 1968 has said that while they’re happy about Obama, they’re “praying for him, because we saw what happened to Malcolm and Martin.”
The fact that Clinton said it was less damaging than the fact that she didn’t see any reason to apologize to Obama. Chalk that up to yet another way in which Clinton threw away the black vote.
Zoe
Good catch on the use of “I”. It’s not a coincidence.
Way back in December when I was still undecided I remember going to Clinton’s website and looking at one of the commercials posted. There was cute Christmas music playing as Senator Clinton sat at a table full of wrapped gifts, writing cards. One gift box was labelled “Universal health care,” another “pre-k education”, etc and the cards were addressed to “The American people.” It was supposed to be all cute and funny.
I remember being totally squicked by it. Like she’s this Benevolent Dear Leader passing down gifts to the common people out of the goodness of her heart? It was just a weird framing.
The same as the difference between “Yes We Can” and “Yes She Can.”
Sleeper
With respect, you should take another look. Since I was banned for some reason I’ve only been lurking, but nearly every thread is rife with variations on a theme. “The Boys Club got together and rigged the nomination for one of their own.”
All I’ve ever seen are complaints that Obama is phony, misogynist, lazy, has never accomplished a thing, parrots everything Hillary says, etc. Whining and carping reminiscent of junior high.
Well we’re in no mood to listen to emotional blackmail about how we had better be nice or they’ll vote for McCain. And when you try to point out the consequences of that, they accuse you of trying to blackmail them and label you a site violator. It’s pathetic.
er. BTD is “supporting” Obama by complaining about how little he’s done to appease the enraged Clinton supporters, and tut-tutted him for not immediately offering her the VP slot. I guess that’s being supportive. To me he’s an Obama supporter to the same extent that Alan Colmes is a passionate Democrat; the sentiment is honored more in the breach than the observance. And Jeralyn’s praise is about as anemic as one can get. “Of course I have always said I would support the Democratic nominee, even if it is Obama. That said, Hillary is not conceding until Saturday so until then he is not the nominee.” Or words to that effect.
Sleeper
Hey Larry! Did you find that video yet?