Why I will not vote for Obama even if he’s the nominee — and why you shouldn’t either

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 · 227 Comments »

The Obamabots are under the delusion that if Obama wins the nomination (which he hasn’t yet, by the way), all of us in the Hillary camp will forget about the misogyny and come over to their side. Make nice for the sake of party unity. Forgive all the abuse.


Several of us have tried over the past couple of months to explain why that won’t happen, but the Obamabots don’t seem to understand. And I know why: it’s because they don’t take sexism seriously. When women say we will not reward misogyny, we’re laughed off. The Obamabots just tell more jokes and hurl more insults and write more crass articles about how the little lay-dees have their little pan-tees in a twist.

The only “ism” the Obamabots take seriously is racism. So I’m going to try to explain the situation in terms they’ll understand, using a racial analogy.


Imagine this scenario:

The shoe is on the other foot, and Obama, not Hillary, is the punching bag of the media — a media that is blatantly and unapologetically racist. And I do mean blatant. Jokes every night on the cable news shows about Obama’s hair and his fondness for fried chicken. Pundits laughing about what a problem uppity Negroes are.

Across the country, racists openly ridicule Obama and his candidacy. In mainstream stores there are gag gifts playing on racist themes: maybe a (water)Melon Baller with Obama’s head on the handle, maybe a Barack Obama Shoeshine Set — you get the picture. 501c groups invoke the most grotesque racist slurs with their advertising; T-shirts say “Quit Running for President and Shine My Shoes!” Anybody who protests is branded a fool and a spoilsport.

Online, Hillary’s supporters constantly refer to Obama and his supporters as n—–s and c— -s and all the other epithets I refuse to type out. Blogger Boyz blog about those stupid lazy Negroes who are still wallowing in memories of the Civil Rights era, too dumb to get with the program and vote for Hillary.

And the lies: Obama is constantly lied about, belittled, demeaned. His record is distorted, his character impugned. Every day the pundits and the Blogger Boyz urge him to drop out of the race, to remember his place, to give up his seat to the white woman. All in the interest of “party unity.”

And nary a word of reproach from Hillary herself. No denunciation at all of the relentless racism. In fact, she actually cracks a few racist remarks herself, albeit subtle ones. She jokes and nods with the media about “letting” Obama run as long as he wants to. And when she makes speeches about American values, she talks a lot about women’s rights, but never mentions civil rights. She’s strikingly silent on the subject. Even when she delivers a major address on the importance of rooting out bigotry, she neglects to mention racism at all.

Just to make the analogy even more apt, let’s further imagine that some key civil rights issue is on the table — say, voting rights. For forty years the Democrats have been on the side of the angels with that one, but Hillary goes out of her way to say how much she admires and respects those Republicans who don’t think African-Americans should have the right to vote. She says judges with a record of opposing voting rights are good candidates for the nation’s benches — even the Supreme Court.

And the Democratic Party goes along with all this, pushing Hillary as the nominee, ignoring the anger of African-American voters, smugly assuming that they’ll “come back to the fold” by November. After all, say the pundits and the Blogger Boyz, where else are they going to go? The Republicans are even worse.


If you’re an adult American with even half a lick of sense, you know damn well that there is no way black folks would stand for that crap. There is no way any self-respecting African-Americans in this day and age would take that from the Democrats. It’s inconceivable that anybody would expect them to.

Because dig it: if the Democrats carried on like that, they wouldn’t be any better than the Republicans. And they sure as hell wouldn’t deserve the African-American vote.

Why should it be any different with women?

If Barack Obama and his supporters become the new Democratic party, then the Democratic party will no longer be the party of women’s rights. There will still be women in the party, naturally, but basic respect for women as citizens will be a dead letter. It will be the party of John Roberts and anti-choicers and the most virulent outbreak of public misogyny I’ve ever seen. All the sexism of this campaign will be rewarded instead of repudiated.

And that Democratic party will not deserve my vote.

And it’s not just women’s rights at stake. Social Security, health care, sticking up for the working class — those things are important. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the place where those things are defended, not dismissed. The place where those values are embraced. The place where, at every turn of American history over the past century, underdogs and reformers and humanitarians have found shelter.

That’s why I won’t vote for Obama. I’ll be sending a message to the Democratic party: if you want my vote, then you need to earn it. If you throw me under the bus — me and my sisters and my grandparents and my friends and everybody in this country who isn’t a rich man — then to hell with you.

Go on, Democrats, try to get elected without me — me or any of my friends. See how far you get. Go on with your bad self.

And when you figure out that you need my vote, give me a call.


Note on commenting: this thread is closed to Obama trolls. I can’t cope with the volume, given that this post has been linked far and wide. There’s a whole big internet out there where you can make your case that sexism doesn’t exist and we silly bitches are just having a hissy fit because our candidate is behind. Got it. Kthxbai.

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

227 Responses to “Why I will not vote for Obama even if he’s the nominee — and why you shouldn’t either”

  1. Nancy Raffetto says:

    Wow. Just… Wow! I hope your post gets lots of play, because it just nails what we Hillary supporters feel.

    Good for you!

  2. myiq2xu says:

    I wonder what John McSame would promise us for our votes?

    Obama obviously doesn’t want them, maybe we could get a better offer somewhere else.

  3. Violet says:

    Right now I’m wondering what would happen if the Green Party got a sudden influx of millions of new members.

  4. Ciardha says:

    Yep, this is exactly why I will NEVER vote for Obama. I’m writing in Hillary if Obama is the nominee I’m also going to vote against any Dem in the May 20th primary that endorses Obama. I know Yarmouth has (another elitist fake progressive whose done absolutely nothing since he was elected in 2006.)

  5. Lost Clown says:

    I love you

    Ciardha: me too! (well, the Hillary part)

  6. Kim says:

    I’m still not sure what I’m going to do in November – vote for Obama, vote Green Party, or stay at home. I know I won’t vote for McCain, but that’s the only thing I’m sure about. So they’d better not be too cocky about thinking we’ll all come around in the end.
    One thing I do know is that woman-hating is alive and well within everyone(men & women)of every political stripe. No longer can I comfort myself thinking it’s only Republicans, or religious fundementalists.

  7. AM says:

    I just got my sample ballot for June 3 elections here in California. I will be methodically contacting those running for office, the ones I’d expect to vote for (progressive, liberal), to ask them who they support, Clinton or Obama. If they say Obama, that’s it. They don’t get my vote.It’s a litmus test. For a Democratic Party politician to support Obama indicates appallingly bad judgement, and that’s not even counting the mysogyny.

    As canadian gal said at http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/145048/7823

    BO may well be the nominee, but please, ask yourself what progressive would stand silent, supporting with the cold reserve of ambition the disgracefully sexist, blatantly anti-feminist attack on a well-respected woman of the same party or political foe?

    And that’s the other reason why all you progressives who have also stayed silent don’t get my vote no more.

  8. Gayle says:

    I’m not voting for him. Neither is my husband.

    A very sweet woman from HRCs campaign called last night asking for money. We kind of shrugged at each other and then decided to gave her some more.

    So we’re on board with Clinton ’till the end.

    If Obama’s the nominee, I’m taking my measly little “WOW” vote that the party doesn’t want or need and I’m giving it to Cynthia or Cheryl.

    Unity ended the moment they decided Hillary was the enemy.

  9. sister of ye says:

    A most righteous rant. I tip my cap to you.

    Obama’s supporters often argue that electing a black person president (assumedly any black person would do) will magically solve our racial problems here and end cultural conflict around the world. I have to ask: Where were you in 2004, when Carol Mosely Brown, a black woman, was running for president? Wouldn’t she have transformed the country and world as well? Or is it only a black man who would do it?

    Maybe we should kick in and buy Hillary Clinton a dildo. Then she could hold it up and say, “Okay, I’ve got one now. You can give me the nomination.”

    Okay, she has too much class to do that, but it would be funny.

  10. mystic4hill says:

    Thanks, Violet! Just this morning, I sent an email to Howard Dean (howarddean@dnc.org) telling him that if the calls for Hillary to quit did not stop immediately, not only would I NOT vote for Obama (I was planning to only vote down-ticket) but I WOULD vote for John McCain.

    I never thought I would ever say this, but a McCain presidency scares me much less than an Obama presidency.

    Unity? Hah! The Democratic Party doesn’t even know what it means any more.

  11. octogalore says:

    Another in the column of “not voting for Obama.” Right on, Violet.

  12. Delphyne says:

    Violet – thank you! This is the best analogy written about the misogyny that is so pervasive in this country, in the media, in this campaign. I will forward it widely. Many thanks….

  13. No Blood for Hubris says:

    Great post.

  14. Alikatze says:

    Violet, I will be voting Green if Hillary does not win the nomination. Cynthia McKinney appears to be the Green front-runner so far for Pres. After what I have witnessed in this campaign – the absolute abandonment of Hillary for the first MALE candidate the Democrats could rally around, the appalling smear job because she is female, and the “nudge-wink” attitude of Obama himself – I will not, never, ever give my vote to Obama. In fact, after this race, I may never vote Dem again. The Democrats are without any courage, fortitude or long-term goals (and this current nominating process is not the first time I have thought this). I turn my back on “Democrats.” This country needs something more than “Republican” and “RepublicanLite” on the ballot.

  15. dak says:

    Very well said.

    It is a prevalent myth that you owe a certain candidate a vote, just because they are a member of a certain party. The candidate does not have to earn your vote, he (or she) should just get it automatically. And they call that democracy?

    If you automatically support Obama in this election, you are giving your seal of approval to all the activities that he and his supporters have taken over the past months. And you will also be approving their takeover of the Democratic Party: it is not going to roll back to the old party after the election without some force against it.

    So how can you ultimately express you extreme displeasure, in a way that they will understand. Writing letters, angry (bitter!?) speeches and withholding money won’t work. There is only one metric that politicians understand — that is the vote.

    What are the alternatives? I don’t think not voting is valid, because then your voice is mute. You can vote, but not for the president. You could write in Hillary’s name, and perhaps it might even be noticed. You could vote for McCain, even if he stands for very little you support, but then will observers realize you were voting against Obama and not for McCain? Or you could vote for one of the third party candidates that will be on your ballot, the one that you feel most reflects your beliefs. There will be several to choose from. If enough people do this, they will get the message.

    But people will argue that McCain is so bad that we must vote against him. But consider: Obama will be supported by all those progressives that should be criticizing him when, for example, he works to privatize Social Security. But they won’t, since he is one of them. But from Day One McCain will be faced by a large tide of critics, he will be able to do less damage than the unhindered Obama.

  16. Level Best says:

    The word “sexism” just doesn’t seem strong enough to describe the blatant, harmful ugliness that has been on display during this race. If women don’t clearly register their outrage about this, they will never be taken into consideration again.

  17. julia says:

    Great post! This site has given me lots of solace since January.
    We have a chance to support a real progressive, who is also a woman: Cynthia McKinney. This could be the year that women give a boost to the Green Party. If the Greens get enough votes we could eventually have a third party, and a real diversity of choice. So don’t vote for “the guys” – vote for Cynthia!

  18. parentofed says:

    Your words are the thoughts that have been running around in my head; thank you for putting them together on paper in a coherent way. I’m 59, the sexism of so many left men [and some naive young women] has been a dirty little secret for many years.

    I intended to support any Dem, but not now. I am changing my affiliation to Ind & cancelling my cable & news mags. I don’t know where I belong, but it’s not with Obama or Donna B or the MSM or BloggerBoyz or the Dem Party.

  19. Mermaid says:

    I love this post, and I hope it gets read by many. I myself am wrestling with whether or not I’ll vote for Obama if he’s the nominee. However, as a feminist I could NEVER vote for McCain. Please keep in mind that he is anti-choice, anti-women…if he gets the power to nominate a supreme court justice he will pick someone who is ultra-conservative, and roe v wade will be overturned, not to mention countless other potential laws that effect women. If you call yourself a feminist you most likely do not want to see this happen, right?? Please don’t vote McCain!!

  20. eriezindian says:

    Fantastic post! I have had it with being put down by the blatant women trashers. I will never vote for Obama……can’t think of a way they can placate me. Quoting the Dixie Chicks………..”Not ready to make nice” ever!!!

  21. PJ says:

    Couldn’t agree with you more. And if 90% plus of all black voters are voting for The One, is that not also a form of racism in itself? Seems to me this argument is one sided. In favor of him of course.

  22. Becki Jayne says:

    Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant, Violet.

    I’ve already determined that I will vote for Cynthia McKinney if Obama gets the nom. I’ve voted for her in the past for Congress. Green Party has a progressive platform that especially suits my partner and me.

    I must stop by here more often. I feel uplifted. Thanks, Violet. Gave you props at my spot.

  23. Violet says:

    PJ, I disagree that Obama’s black support is a form of racism. I think it is completely understandable community pride. African-Americans have suffered a dreadful history in this country and their support for the first (maybe) black President is understandable.

  24. Violet says:

    Mermaid, I will not vote for McCain.

    But the Roe v. Wade issue isn’t cut and dried. Given Obama’s support for John Roberts (see here) and his intention to work with Republicans, I have no confidence that he will appoint reliably pro-choice justices. I think what matters most to Obama is whether somebody was on Harvard Law Review.

    Furthermore, we as women cannot allow Roe v. Wade to be held over our heads in this way. Are we supposed to take whatever the Dems dish out, just for the chance (an iffy chance) of preserving a majority on the Court? And what kind of situation is this, anyway, when women’s rights hang on the whims of a few old men with lifetime appointments to the bench?

    I think we need to shift the game and take charge.

  25. Hanna says:

    Well done! Everyone hear Donna Brazille on CNN ??? Primary Night?- she told Paul Begalia – the New Dem party doesn’t need the white working class vote, or the woman vote – those Hillary supporters, the New Dem party has more than plenty of voters from the Black Community and the Youth vote. Go to you tube and see Paul’s reaction. I left the party when Obama supporters became as Michelle Whiner Obama would say “down right mean”. What a projection that was on her part. Now, I am downright disgusted by the New Dem Party and will vote McCain. Anybody but the New Dem Party boy Snobama. I can’t wait till Pelosi and company are up for reelection. I don’t live in her state but I will send money to anyone who opposes her. All those supers who backed Obama – I won’t forget.

  26. Lost Clown says:

    And going along with what Violet said, Congress needs to confirm these judges. So a Democratic congress is not going to keep more conservatives from being put on the bench? Isn’t that their job? Why are we being guilted into voting for someone for president? Is it because they can’t or won’t do their job? And if that is the case, we should really not be voting for the Dems at all, ever.

  27. Red Queen says:

    If the Obamabots think I can cast my ballot from under the wheel of their campaign bus, they are sadly mistaken.

    I’m either writing Hillary in or voting for Cynthia McKinney and the green party. Could we take over the green party, us escaping vagina americans?

  28. Gayle says:

    Lost Clown,

    The last two Supreme Court noms show exactly how hard they’ll fight for women (not at all)!

    When NARAL used their own money on an ad to raise awareness about Robert’s postitions on abortion, the party bullied them to stop airing it. They then nominated him, of course. When women, and a few fair-minded, progressive men, asked for a fillibuster of Alito- well, you know how that turned out.

    They like to hold Roe over our heads every time a GE rolls around. Have they done anything to stop the gutting of abortion rights in the meantime? Hillary has tried, along with a few others. The Dem party on the whole has shown an unwillingness to touch the issue at all.

  29. Violet says:

    Here are the Green Party’s Ten Key Values:

    1. Grassroots Democracy
    2. Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
    3. Ecological Wisdom
    4. Non-violence
    5. Decentralization
    6. Community-Based Economics and Economic Justice
    7. Feminism and Gender Equity
    8. Respect for Diversity
    9. Personal and Global Responsibility
    10. Future Focus and Sustainability

  30. Lola says:

    Great post, bad conclusion. We cannot have another Republican as President. As a lesbian, I know what it’s like to be devalued and thrown under the bus, but I still feel it is crucial to elect a Dem – even if it is Obama. I agree Hillary is the best candidate. But the future of the Supreme Court, at the very least, is in danger if McCain gets in.

  31. Lillian says:

    We are Americans first..before Party.
    We will NOT VOTE for such an unqualified individual that could endanger our great country..NO!!

    I have been a Democrat since 1972 and will leave the Party who would have left me first by pushing this farce down our throat.


    HILLARY 08

  32. Gayle says:

    You know, Hillary Clinton is poised to win the next primaries by blow out proportions.

    That’s why the pro-Obama media is calling it over. They are hoping her supporters will give up and she’ll have to get out due to lack of funds.

    Help her, if you can.

  33. ModDem says:

    What will you all do when Hillary endorses Obama? Just curious.

  34. YAB says:

    You said exactly what I’ve been thinking (that a vote for Obama would be the equivalent of an AA voting for a KKK member just because the he’s a Democrat) only much, much better.

    For months now, I’ve been sure that I would vote for Obama if I had to, and I’ve reminded friends & associates that a Dem. Pres. is always better than a Rep. President, but after another round of gloating, vicious glee from the Obamanuts & the media, I realized that I couldn’t do it. I can’t.
    I will admit that my act of conscience will be relatively easy. I don’t think an election between McCain & Obama will be even close. What the Obamanites don’t realize is that all Obama has to sell is himself and he can’t win against McCain on the basis of his life story because McCain’s 5 years in a Vietnam prison camp trump anything that has ever happened to Obama.

    There are two other reasons, however, that I can’t vote for Obama: First, Florida & Michigan. Obama not only refuses to let their votes be counted, he has blocked revotes in both states (in spite of a public appeal & guarantee from Carville of 10 million to help fund the revote). That both Obama and his supporters believe this tactic is OK in the course of a primary demonstrates to me that they know & care as little about democracy as Bush and Cheney.

    Second: I want to see the MSM punditocracy and the so-called AList liberal blogosphere (KOS, HuffPost, you know the list) to be thoroughly and completely discredited.

    We have simply got to stop the MSM’s blatent & unrepentant role as arbiters of who gets to run and who gets to win.

  35. Minniemom says:

    You took the words right out of my mouth . . . only much more eloquently!

    There was a time when I thought I would support Senator Obama if he were the nominee, but no longer. I have made peace with my decision to support Senator McCain if Hillary is not an option (though I still believe that she will ultimately be the nominee and I will fight with her and for her until the end). I am proud to say that my husband, parents, sister and her family, and many, many friends of mine have also made the decision to vote AGAINST Obama.

    It has nothing to do with being or not being a democrat. It has to do with being taken for granted – whether you are a female subject to such misogyny or a bitter, gun-clinging person, or a typical white person, or a pesky member of the white working class – Obama doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you and doesn’t respect you. We have all seen this and will never give him the time of day let alone our precious votes.

  36. Violet says:

    What will you all do when Hillary endorses Obama? Just curious.

    You mean assuming she isn’t the nominee herself? It will have no influence on me.

    What’s happening here is that the women of America — the regular voters — are putting their foot down. The Democratic Party cannot count on our votes unless they’re going to stand up for women’s rights and treat us with respect. The misogyny of this campaign must not be rewarded. The only way to put a stop to this nonsense is to withhold our votes.

    A Democratic party that’s lost the women’s vote will be a Democratic party bending over backwards to win it back.

  37. Joseph Cannon says:

    An astonishingly good post. You made many necessary points with tremendous elegance.

    If Obama is the nominee, Cynthia McKinney would be the ideal alternative choice. How can anyone label us racist if we vote for her?

    On my own humble blog, I’ve repeatedly noted that no Republican ever called me racist. Well, neither has any Green.

    The only other time I ever went the third party route was 1980. The reason: I could not vote for a man whose foreign policy was made by Zbigniew Brzenzinski. And now Zbig is back — Obama’s his man — and once again, I am outta the party.

  38. teresa says:

    The democratic party has left me I have NO choice left except to vote republican or green party..I will Never vote for Obama.He would destroy our country. He has already divided it.

  39. Mimi Schaeffer says:

    Exactly. I have never voted for a Republican for president. But this time, I’ll either stay home or vote for McCain.

    Either way, the Democrats will be running Congress; and as an added bonus to a McCain win, we finally get rid of Lieberman and add to our progressive majority.

  40. Diane says:

    After 37 years of voting the Democratic ticket, after enthusiastically supporting and campaigning for Democratic candidates, after a lifetime of insisting that voting is a duty, that if you don’t participate in the process you have no right to complain about the results, to find myself even contemplating not voting for the Democratic nominee has been an absolutely gut wrenching, emotionally devastating experience.

    But I’m over it, and have been for weeks. If I wanted to hijack your journal, I could spend pages listing all the ways Obama has proved himself unethical, divisive, racist, sexist, and complicit in the dirty tricks used by his supporters to steal the nomination. Let’s just leave it as that there will be ice skating in Hell before Obama gets my vote. Or my husband’s. (He’s a lifelong Independent who switched to the Democratic party to vote for Hillary, but then he used to walk around with Support ERA buttons and stickers back in the 70′s)

    I’ve been planning to write in Hillary’s name, mainly to drive the point home to the idiots in charge of the DNC, but seeing everyone here talking about Cynthia McKinney makes me rethink that strategy. Sounds like voting for her will drive the point home even more deeply.

    Thanks for the post.

  41. Lost Clown says:

    Off topic, but a “friend” called me a racist b/c of my latest post (well his comment is now my latest post). Apparently caring about disenfranchising the working class and women makes me racist!

    (This from someone who only 2 months ago said the only reason he wanted Obama to win was because he would get in the WH and then screw everyone over and radicalise people! I think he drank the kool aid.)

    Am I part of the club now?

  42. Lost Clown says:

    Diane, I don’t know. I thought that them knowing that so many people wrote Hillary’s name in would send a strong message. Obviously if the worst happens we’ll have to devise a strategy come August.

  43. Violet says:

    The racism charges flying around are just astounding. As if that’s the only reason people might have for not liking Obama?

    The irony is that, for me, Obama’s race is actually the biggest thing in his favor. I would dearly love to have an African-American president, and I hope to see that in my lifetime.

  44. Babs says:

    I will not waste my vote by staying home or voting for someone who has no chance. I will vote for John McCain, and no one can hold the Supreme Court argument over this woman’s head because I have been fighting for pro-choice since before most of you were born, and since this great “younger vote” of Obama’s has shown absolutely no respect for core Democratic voters like me, let them fight their own battles like I did for so many years. The end will never justify the means, when the means are the race-baiting, lying, nasty, misogynistic tactics of Obama and his campaign, and I will be part of the McCain Democrats to send that message to the DNC and the far left if this man is our nominee.

  45. julia says:

    I love you women, you made my evening :) !
    Voting Green will send a strong message to the Democratic Party: it will tell them that now they have real competition from a party that has populist values. They can not call us suckers for voting for McCain because we will support a candidate much better than theirs. And they can lament that they lost our precious votes, our precious dollars and our precious support.

  46. Broce says:

    Gorgeous, gorgeous post.

    At this point, I was leaning towards staying home…but I suppose thats really just a way of disappearing myself, as so many women have been silenced over the years. Perhaps a vote for McKinney would be the way to go.

    I had a dream the other night that I was watching television and John Edwards came on to say he was unsuspending his campaign. Would that it were so.

  47. LMSW says:

    I’ve supported HRC, although I’m far to the left of both Obama and HRC. However, I’m not a Troskyist. I think the world is in such a bad place that we cannot allow things to get worse on the chance that they will get better at some time in the future.

    Too many people have died or been maimed and tortured because of the current presidency. How many innocents have died in Iraq? How much further towards irreversible global warming have we moved? How many civil rights have we already lost? How bad will the economy get? Four more years of the Republican party will mean four more years of death, debt and ruin. It will also mean that the Bush administration is not held accountable for its crimes. Crimes far worse than the sexism of this campaign.

    As to the SCOTUS, the world is in a terribly reactionary place when a woman’s right to choose is in such a precarious state. The end of Rowe will mean more women will suffer and die. I cannot vote in a way that further endangers these women.

    While I have detested the sexism of this campaign, I can only vote for the best chance to reduce suffering in the near future. Obama’s voting record is 95% the same as HRC’s. Protesting sexism and voting for Obama are not mutually exclusive. I would prefer to continue to fight sexism with the Democrats (such as they are) controlling congress and the white house, with an eye toward balancing the supreme court.

    Even under Jim Crow African Americans voted when they could.

  48. Violet says:

    The next four years aren’t the end of the world. It’s more important to me to save the Democratic Party, otherwise we’ll have no voice at all. Obama is just Republican Lite.

  49. Violet says:

    Or rather, save what the Democratic party stands for. Or used to.

  50. ekittyglendower says:

    The supreme court does not scare me when it comes to Roe vs Wade. Perhaps this article will help, it is a long read but worth it in my opinion. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/roe

    I will not vote for Obama, ever. Not ever. I’m bracing myself for the day he finally turns to people like me and display a half ass effort to get my vote. I’m bracing myself because I know I will have to curse some bastards out. Naturally all the kewl kids are demanding Clinton to apologise for her racism but never seem to demand an apology from Barry. It’s like we are living in some bizarre la la land. An unqualified man is being held up as the choice. Unbelievable. I would not trust Barack Obama with my checkbook much less the presidency.

    And I wrote Dr. Dean a very nasty letter today. No email, the old kind with pen and paper.

  51. ekittyglendower says:

    Obama’s voting record is 95% the same as HRC’s.

    That may be so when he votes, however, how many times has he sat on the fence and voted present instead? A fence sitter is more dangerous than a committed vote.

  52. Alikatze says:

    Violet, you say you want to save what the Democratic Party stands for – hm, do you really think that’s possible? In this day and age? Why not work towards having more than 2-party domination of the political spectrum?

    Honestly, since the days of Reagan, I feel that the Democratic Party has been slowly losing it’s luster. Bill Clinton was a breath of fresh air, but even he had to let go of some major issues that Dems hold dear (welfare, health care, keeping business local). I just don’t see today’s Dems as being the grassroots, leftie people they once were.

  53. donna darko says:

    Clinton did apologize for racism

    She apologized at least three times for her husband’s, Ferraro’s and Shaheen’s remarks. Ferraro and Shaheen resigned. Bill is permanent. When will Obama apologize for sexism in the campaign?

  54. Adrienne in CA says:

    Nailed it. Not to mention his admiration for Reagan, willingness to appoint John Roberts, compromise on gay & women’s rights, privatizing SS, charter schools, nuclear power and non-universal healthcare, plus his scummy Chicago political ties.

    DNC: It’s Hillary or the highway.

  55. TeresaINPa says:

    Ugh, I am so disgusted. My party is about to nominate, through nothing but stubborn ignorance, a man who I think is less qualified to run this country than even George Bush was.
    Forget policy, do you really want a president who flips off his opponent and does an imitation of some asshole rapper because he got some tough questions in a debate? Do you really want a president who has never finished one office before running for the next?
    There are so many other reasons why he is not ready to be president.

  56. sister of ye says:

    I cut the black community slack on voting overwhelmingly for Obama. Then I recalled that there was a black candidate in 2004, Carol Mosely Brown. She was even from Chicago. There was no campaign to support her as the transformative first black president.

    And if she had questionable financial dealings, I don’t think they rose to the level of Obama’s ties to Rezko and the rest of the Chicago machine.

    But Brown had a little baggage Obama didn’t – that “wo-” before the “man.”

    Note: Yes, I know Al Sharpton also ran in 2004. But he has always been an agitator rather than an office holder.

  57. Mermaid says:

    Violet – I should clarify what I meant. When I said please don’t vote for McCain, I don’t mean go vote Obama. Trust me, I agree with all that you’ve said about him 100%. If Hillary isn’t on the ballot I was planning to write her in, even though that feels kind of pointless to be honest. Now thanks to the comments here I’m leaning towards voting for Cynthia.

    I’m disgusted with the whole obamabot/MSM obsession and obama himself is not someone I feel comfortable having as President. However, that being said, everything I think about Obama is pretty much multiplied by 100 when applied to McCain, and I completely agree with LMSW. Electing Mr. 100 more years in Iraq will be deadly, literally.

    Not to mention reproductive freedom, and yes we have a Dem congress but they’ve proven to be largely ineffectual and their majority is razor-thin and therefore vulnerable to change, and no of course I don’t think it’s right for that to be held over our heads but frankly it is! Which is why we need Hillary in office, but anyway…

    Obvs everyone has the right to vote how they choose, if at all, and I don’t expect to sway anyone, but just had to throw in my opinion. Anyway, I feel like I’m jumping the gun, as of now I still am counting on Hillary being the nominee. If she’s not, well, there’s many months between now and November, and who knows what might happen. Thanks for the powerful, inspiring post.

  58. tinfoil hattie says:

    Okay — I voted for Hillary Clinton, I have donated $300 to her campaign, and I will not vote for Obama.

    AND — what was the deal with her “working Americans, white Americans” comment? Are white Americans the only people who “work”?

    She should apologize for that one. It came straight out of her own mouth, and was appalling. I couldn’t believe she said it.

  59. LMSW says:

    @50 Thank you for the Atlantic article. I read it. I wish it had reassured me but I’m afraid it didn’t. The author acknowledges the likely negative consequences (more poor women in red states effected), but believes that after Roe, due to legislative battles, sensationalistic deaths due to back alley abortions and pro-choice backlash, some kind of moderate consensus will be achieved. This moderate consensus includes warnings to pro-choice activists not to overreach. I’m a social worker. People with very limited resources are my clients and these people and their children are already suffering. The end of Roe will mean more suffering and hardship.

    When I was working in the south Bronx, we resorted to extreme measures to keep the military recruiters out of the high school. Even then I can’t tell you how many young men and women were trying to join the military. McCain will continue the war and more young men and women of color will die as a result (to say nothing of a possible war with Iran). Obama seems more likely than McCain to end the war.

    As I have said, Obama is not my first choice. I know his policies are flawed. He lacks experience and grit, etc. I doubt he is going to win any red or republican lite states. Frankly, I fear he won’t win at all, and not because HRC supporters leave the party. Still, he is better than McCain and I have hope that Hillary and a more active, empowered, democratic congress (again, such as it is) will move this country in a progressive direction. There are worse things than de-emphasizing the executive branch.

  60. octogalore says:

    Tinfoil hattie: in looking at the transcript of the speech and viewing the video, that read to me like hard working Americans [across racial lines] and white Americans [across income brackets]. She appeared to be just listing separate demographic groups rather than saying hard working = white. I think it’s factual that the working class of all races, plus whites, support her in high percentages as demographic groups.

    It was worded unfortunately because it provides an opening for accusations of racism, but I don’t think the context suggests any racism here at all.

  61. Apostate says:

    I’m appalled that feminists (presumably) are ready to vote for McCain.

    Come on! I’m not thrilled with Obama and if I had to make a choice, probably would vote for McKinney over Obama OR McCain, but Obama is nothing like the disaster McCain would be.

    At the very least, feminists need to withhold their vote from McCain for McCain’s rather long and distinguished record of voting against women’s interests.

    Violet, please speak out against McCain. He hates women and he’s demonstrated that over and over again with abortion rights and even the recent Ledbetter legislation. He should NOT be an option for feminists, no matter how angry they are at the Democrats. If they’ve sold women out, the Republicans have been doing that systematically for decades.

  62. Shane says:

    I suppose the difference is between one party that’s already sold women out (GOP) and one party (DEM) that’s in the process of doing so—because the latter is still in the process something can be done about it. One can be drawn back, in other words, but if they’re not it becomes a matter of being screwed (moreso) by both parties and that leaves even fewer possibilities.

  63. Violet says:

    Apostate, I won’t vote for McCain, you can be sure. I’m to the left of the Democrats (or what used to be the Democrats), so there’s no way I’ll be going to the Republicans.

    But there’s no way I can persuade all Hillary supporters to eschew McCain, because Hillary’s coalition is broader than that. This is something the Obama fanboys don’t realize, because women are invisible to them. From working with the Hillary campaign I’ve seen first-hand that she draws support from women of every stripe, including moderates who, if forced out of the party, will go to McCain.

    Hillary’s candidacy has re-created the old feminist coalition of before, when women of every political stripe came together. It could be incredibly powerful at the ballot box. But the Obama fanboys aren’t interested. They don’t want our votes.

  64. Apostate says:

    But there’s no way I can persuade all Hillary supporters to eschew McCain…

    No, I get that. But feminists, at least, SHOULD eschew McCain. That’s pretty straightforward, I would’ve thought.

    Of course, my assumption that the women commenting here who are talking about voting for McCain, are feminists, might be incorrect.

  65. Apostate says:

    What I’m trying to say, in other words, is if the relatively subtle sexism of Obama (not his campaign, not his supporters, but his own sexism) can lose him the feminist vote, then it’s mind boggling that McCain — the overtly unapologetically sexist/misogynist candidate who is going to actively hurt women — will get any feminist’s vote. That should be unthinkable.

  66. Violet says:

    Well, Shane up there pretty much captured it perfectly:

    I suppose the difference is between one party that’s already sold women out (GOP) and one party (DEM) that’s in the process of doing so—because the latter is still in the process something can be done about it. One can be drawn back, in other words, but if they’re not it becomes a matter of being screwed (moreso) by both parties and that leaves even fewer possibilities.

    Or as Level Best up there said succinctly:

    If women don’t clearly register their outrage about this, they will never be taken into consideration again.

    That’s what’s at stake.

  67. Violet says:

    Of course, my assumption that the women commenting here who are talking about voting for McCain, are feminists, might be incorrect.

    But here’s the thing: when you say ‘feminists’ you’re thinking of modern feminists like you and me, who tend to be ultra-progressive on all issues.

    But there is a huge segment of women out there who are feminists in terms of women’s rights and have been since the 70s, but in other respects are fairly moderate (or have become so over the past couple of decades). Those are the women whose feminism has been re-awakened by Hillary’s campaign. It reminds me of the old days, when women from every stripe could agree on one thing, at least!

  68. jacilyn says:

    IMO it isn’t about Obama being sexist. It’s about whether or not we are OK with the Democratic party basically saying they don’t have to do look out for us. Women aren’t important the way blacks are.

    If we’re okay with that, and we vote for Obama, we are giving away the only power we have.

    Right now, I am thinking about voting Green if Obama is the candidate. What I will actually do will depend on circumstances ‘on the ground’. I would like it if there was a concerted, unified sort of effort – if everyone voted Green or if a new party started or if everyone made some symbolic gesture.

    I really think it is important that we make our power visible and we make it a real threat, that has to be taken seriously. If we don’t, it is the equivalent of letting a man get away with hitting you – there is every reason to suppose, not only that it will happen again, but that it will get even worse later on.

  69. Jeff says:

    Just so people know where I’m coming from, I’m only mildly leaning toward voting Obama in the Oregon primary (which finally counts for something), and would be happy to have either candidate win the race. I’m not a regular, but got here from Shakesville, so if I’m intruding, I apologize. Let me know I’m not welcome, and I’ll not intrude again.

    In any case, I thought my quandry in the 2002 Massachusetts race for governor might be relevant to the discussion (I live there at the time). Mitt Romney was running against Democrat Shannon O’Brien. Romney, back then, was running as a moderate Republican, and actually said positive things about protecting a woman’s right to choose and the rights of the GLBT community. O’Brien, alas, was a product of the Massachusetts Democratic machine, which was frankly, not terribly progressive and had a shamefully corrupt legacy – the Senate for many years was run by the brother of the state’s most powerful gangster, for example.

    Anyway, I voted Jill Stein, Green party. I thought she was the only one talking like an adult during the entire campaign and figured, even if Romney wins, how bad can it be?

    It was bad. Very bad. Romney fought same-sex marriage tooth and nail, and went after a woman’s right to choose with a passion that only an upcoming Republican presidential primary can fire.

    Obama has disappointed me. His vote on Roberts was appalling, for instance. But so was Clinton’s vote on the war.

    Ultimately, when it comes to policy, these two are very, very close, which is why, I think, this campaign has been so intensely personal. McCain on the other hand would be total disaster — a forever war in Iraq, a new war with Iran, a cold war with China, more judges like Alito and Roberts. (Personally, I don’t think that Obama’s vote for Roberts means he’d nominate judges like Roberts, just like I don’t think Clinton’s vote on the war means she’d not get us out of Iraq — but I’m open to convincing)

    Anyway, just food for thought. I’m not trying to tell anyone how they should vote, just sharing my own story. If you’d violate your principals by voting Obama (if he wins), I respect that.

  70. Apostate says:

    But there is a huge segment of women out there who are feminists in terms of women’s rights and have been since the 70s, but in other respects are fairly moderate (or have become so over the past couple of decades).

    I’m sorry if I’m being dense, but if a feminist cares about women’s rights, why would she vote for McCain, even if she’s “moderate” on other issues? Feminism of ANY stripe alone rules him entirely out. Go Green! Write in Hillary! But don’t reward the assholes who’ve fucked women over every chance they’ve had.

  71. BryceM says:

    So, there are five choices to voters. Assuming Clinton doesn’t get the nomination, you have four choices:

    Obahama (who you don’t want)
    Third party

    No third party will win, so the last two choices may as well be identical. Personally, I don’t believe if McCain wins that he will actually pull us out of Iran in his term, but I could be wrong.

  72. donna darko says:

    She meant working class, and white people, massive, essential, demographics needed to win. Hard working was a gaffe but it emphasized something positive about the working class. If you’re under stress, it’s easy to misspeak.

    McCain-no. Write-ins for Hillary make the point.

  73. Mike says:

    I’ll write in Sen. Clinton come November if it is not close. If it is close (I’m in a swing-state), I’ll vote McCain. Your points on McCain and his values are well taken. However, the question here is the future of the Democratic Party. If Obama wins, the Dems may well lose Congress in 2010 (the usual result of a mid-term election). I don’t see how the Dems can possibly pick up seats given the recession, Iraq, other issues that will plague us for the next two years, issues which Obama is simply not prepared to tackle.

    On the other hand, if McCain wins, the Dems get to pick up seats (once again, no miracle solution to Iraq in the next two years) and are that much better positioned for 2012. Moreover, the thinking that the Dems can simply turn their back on the New Deal coalition must be discredited before it destroys the party. Helping Obama lose is the only way to accomplish that.

  74. octogalore says:

    I think writing in Hillary as opposed to supporting Obama would probably create some negativity in lefty bloglandia, but that’s what I would most likely do if Hillary is not the nominee. I’ve been debating between doing this and McKinnon. Both would be mostly for message value, and I’m concluding that writing in Hillary is the message I’d prefer to send. With my husband likely going McCain, I was initially tempted to bite my tongue and vote Obama to cancel him out, but I cannot bring myself to do that.

  75. baby feminist says:

    Forgive my ignorance, but would it be totally impossible for Hillary to run anyway, should she lose the nom? Could she leave the Dems and create a new party?

    Sorry if this sounds totally dumb.

  76. Marc says:

    If Obama gets the nomination, I’m voting for McCain. If Hillary gets the nomination I’m voting for her. It’s that simple. Furthermore, I live in Ohio and I’d be willing to bet that enough Ohioans will follow suit to prevent him from winning Ohio’s 20 electoral votes. Polling data supports that too BTW.

  77. Violet says:

    baby feminist:

    It’s not a dumb question, but I can’t imagine Hillary doing that. She’s a lifelong Democrat, a Democratic senator, her husband was the only full two-term Democratic president since FDR and the most popular Democrat of a generation. I can’t see her leaving the party. Though I wish she would!

    The Obama contingent is making it clear that we’re not leaving them, they’re leaving us. They don’t want us. They don’t want anybody who isn’t a chino-wearing Whole Foods-shopping blogger boy (or an African-American willing to vote for Obama).

  78. slythwolf says:

    The word “sexism” just doesn’t seem strong enough to describe the blatant, harmful ugliness that has been on display during this race. If women don’t clearly register their outrage about this, they will never be taken into consideration again.

    Nail on the head. My mother used to ask me when I would get pissed off, growing up, “Is this the hill you want to die on?”

    Yes. Yes it is.

  79. richard niemann says:

    As a gay man of some years, I know where the Clinton’s stand on Gay,Lesbian and Transgender issues, I cannot say the same for Mr. Obama.

    As a healthcare professional who has spent the last 23 years serving the HIV/AIDS community in my home town, I know where the Clintons stand. I can’t say the same for Mr. Obama.

    As a person whose mother worked in a bakery and my father was a truck driver, I have admired Hillary and Bill Clinton for their individual efforts to improve the lot of everyone.
    I cannot say the same for Mr. Obama

  80. julia says:

    This is great stuff- reading this and that the sun shone all day today, first time in over 3 weeks, has made me forget that BO is doing a rally in town tonight.

    I agree w/ Violet that not voting Dem is not such a big deal even though you may hate me for saying it: we have had at least two stolen elections. Since we didn’t shut down the country, virtually nothing is in place to assure that this one won’t be stole as well. And now they’ve passed the voter ID law, so get ready for more fraud. Or ‘disenfranchised voters’

    I think Obama might be the one to make more restrictive abortion laws. I call him the conservative in disguise, so if McCain “wins” at least it’s no disguise and that may make us join together and work like hell to change things. We need to do that anyway.

    I have an enormous amount of hope – this could be the beginning of a thrid party and if we join together as feminists, both women and men, we can demand that the Green Party adopt a feminist platform.
    We have to start using our votes as bargaining tools – no one gets them for free.

  81. Adrienne in CA says:

    I so appreciate this excellent post and thoughtful comments of all present.

    One note: I seriously doubt that votes for Cynthia McKinney would be interpreted as protest votes for Hillary, and a gesture like that means very little if no one knows. I prefer to write-in Hillary, but there’s still a risk that it will go unnoticed, since write-ins are rarely reported unless the percentage is really high.

    So I plan to take a photo of all three of my small family’s votes for Hillary on our absentee ballots and send that pic to the DNC. I suppose you can also take a picture of a voting machine screen (never touch the things myself). If we all do this, we’ll at least have the satisfaction that someone actually got the message.


    P.S. to Dr. Socks:
    Ah yes, I remember The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Were you a member of Quality Paperback Book Club, by chance? :)

  82. orlando says:

    Question from an ignorant Australian: do write-ins get tallied? Will it be published how many people wrote in Clinton at the ballot box?

    If Obama ends up the Dem nominiee after all, I do hope anyone who’s considering staying home will vote for McKinney instead. That could send a huge message, and a positive one.

  83. Buffy says:

    Brilliantly stated and exactly how I feel. If Obama thinks he’s getting my vote he’s got another thing coming. Between the sexism and the way he threw LGBTs under the bus (not to mention the many other ways he’s screwed up) he couldn’t buy my vote.

  84. tinfoil hattie says:

    “Is this the hill you want to die on?”

    Well, I don’t see many other available hills.

    And I don’t think Hillary Clinton is racist, or that she meant her comment to come across as racist. I think it would be cool if she clarified, though — something Obama has NEVER done re: “tea parties,” and “you’re likeable enough, Hillary,” and “Periodically, when she’s feeling down…”

    I also agree that it seems sexism isn’t as big a concern in this country as racism. That is, not as big a public concern. I think that’s the big difference for me. There are no gold medalists in the Oppression Olympics (do you LOVE that cliche, or what?), and racism & sexism are ugly, all-pervasive, and shameful. But it seems while we’re ready to decry racism outright, we not only are reluctant to speak out against sexism, we continue to condone it and create markets out of it and accept it as a necessary part of life.

    And, of course, by “we” I mean except everyone who reads & posts here :-)

  85. julia says:

    Tinfoil Hattie, excellent points!
    In my town there have been racism study groups to educate people about racism. sexism study groups? Never.

    Being anti-racist is cool in many circles, especially among those who call themselves progressive. What I think happens is that many of these folks are men who date women, or are married to women and still want to dominate at home, even if it’s in very subtle ways that most women accept. Or put up with. So if sexism becomes a broader topic of discussion, these men who say they’re for freedom will be forced to examine their own behavior and own up to their own domination.

    I also think the reason our rape laws are so weak and that the # of men who rape and women who are raped is growing, is because of the ‘men’s club’. Those that make the laws and enforce them may also be guilty of them, and they don’t want to get caught.

    On the topic of voting Green, the votes that are counted make the books and the news every election. it will make a strong statement if the Greens get high numbers this year.

  86. tinfoil hattie says:

    Julia, I wonder if the number of men who rape and women who are raped is growing, or if a noisy but small faction of us are finally speaking out about the fact that “sex with a minor” “sex with a 12-year-old” “forced marriage” and “sex with a child prostitute” is not sex, but RAPE. Our rape culture is such a part of America, and indeed the whole world, that it wasn’t until I started reading feminist blogs, I didn’t even think about “sex” with underage, forced, or otherwise non-autonomous girls/women as “rape.”

  87. Violet says:

    I have an enormous amount of hope – this could be the beginning of a thrid party and if we join together as feminists, both women and men, we can demand that the Green Party adopt a feminist platform.

    I note that the Greens already include feminism as one of their Ten Key Values.

  88. julia says:

    I saw that. But McKinney’s Reconstruction Platform does not. That is what I was referring to. You can see it and more about her at http://www.runcynthiarun.com

  89. Sis says:

    According to the Canadian media, Clinton is finished. That’s the only context in which they mention her anymore.


    I posted you, with link

  90. Violet says:

    Thanks, Sis.

    Julia, what I’m seeing is that if Hillary isn’t the nominee, her supporters will split into left and right, with some going to the Greens (I hope) and some to the Republicans. That’s because Hillary’s coalition of women is really broad, much broader than the Obama boyz understand (or care). She also has huge support from Latinos and working class folks — basically the traditional Democrats who are now being effectively kicked out of the Democratic party.

    I’m wondering if the only way to keep Hillary’s coalition together and forceful is to create a new party.

  91. donna darko says:

    Creative Class 13%
    Blacks 13%
    18-29 year old eligible voters 25%

    Women 51%
    Working class 33%
    Latinos 15%
    Asians 5%
    Elderly 12%

    WE WIN 116 > 51.

  92. donna darko says:

    I’m not into third party. We can make the Democratic Party right.

    Just vote for Hillary!

  93. No Blood for Hubris says:

    Check out Corrente, you can click through my blog.

    He doesn’t think she’s finished.

  94. jayne says:

    I have never voted for a Republican in my life, but I’m seriously considering voting for McCain if Hillary doesn’t get the nom. As a feminist, I can’t believe I’m considering this but at least the Republicans don’t PRETEND to care about women. The “New” Democratic party clearly doesn’t want us, that much I know. I will NEVER vote for Obama. I may just vote for Nader.

  95. donna darko says:

    Gays 10%

    They also appropriated the Creative Class from gays while throwing them under the bus. It comes from high GLBT density-salary regions like the Silicon Valley.

  96. slythwolf says:

    I have a post referring to this one up on my journal and all the comments I’ve gotten are “omg noes a vote against Obama is a vote for McCain!1″ Getting quite frustrated. This, folks, this is what’s wrong with America (well, one of the things), is that we’re not willing to stand up and say, I don’t believe in this, this isn’t right, and I’m not voting for this person, because we live in fear that if we do the other guy (who is somehow “worse”–to be honest at this point I don’t see a lot of difference between McCain and Obama, at least McCain is honest about his conservatism) will win instead.

    As people have been saying, hell, we’ve just had two stolen presidential elections in this country, it’s not as if the Repugs can’t or won’t do it again.

    And on that note I have to go find a bottle of rum because I am depressed.

  97. Andrys Basten says:

    I’m no Obama troll – see my blogsite if in doubt. And YAB said it all perfectly for me.

    However, I’ve a question for Violet. I didn’t understand this part of the opening blog-post.

    “…let’s further imagine that some key civil rights issue is on the table — say, voting rights. For forty years the Democrats have been on the side of the angels with that one, but Hillary goes out of her way to say how much she admires and respects those Republicans who don’t think African-Americans should have the right to vote.”

    What’s the analogy there? That is a fairly extreme thing for either candidate to do with their stances, and I don’t remember anything like that, though I am planning to either write-in Hillary or, if things are close, maybe vote for McCain for the very reasons Mike gave. I’ll be voting lower-ticket (unless Obama and his lower-ticket nominees do any more to upset so many of us) in order to Stop the more negative of McCain’s moves. If Obama is elected and does have a heavy Congressional backing that would be good if he reverts to any form of idealism. Otherwise I have no reason at all for faith in what he might do, despite his front campaign webpage saying “Believe…!” with bright glows around him. His actions have gone against everything he pretends to be.

  98. stxabuela says:

    Jeff, I understand what you’re saying. I used to tell people not to “throw away” their votes on a third party. However, I’ve changed my mind.

    Why should I support a party that refuses to speak out about the rampant sexism in this campaign? The Democratic Party SAYS it is committed to women’s rights, but how long do I, as a woman, have to wait for the Party to act? The party leadership believes that we women will–again–just quietly wait another 4 years; that we’ll vote Democratic and hope we’ll someday have a woman candidate.

    Frankly, I am tired of people telling me that I have to support a party that ignores me, simply because the other party is so much worse. When was the last time anyone talked about passing the ERA?

    I will never vote for anyone in the Republican Party, because it is even more misogynistic than the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, after being a Democrat for almost 40 years, I have come to the conclusion that women will continue to be ignored unless they speak–with their votes. Rewarding a party, simply for being “not quite as bad” on women’s issues, is no longer an option for me.

    I am now seriously considering Cynthia McKinney, and I appreciate the links others have provided. Candidates, take note. From this moment on, you must EARN my vote. I’m no longer giving it to the lesser of two evils–I’ll look at everyone on the ballot before I make up my mind.

  99. ea says:

    I am so happy to discover this site. It was linked from a Taylor Marsh blog. Please consider Cynthia McKinney if you find you can not vote for Hillary in November–write-in opportunities are not automatic.

  100. idear says:

    I’m a late-comer and a first-comer here.

    The more I think about it, the more I agree that if HRC does not get nominated by the dems, then voting green is the next best way to go.

    Brilliant, just brilliant symbolic message and who knows, it could be like Ross Perot in the ’92 campaign, leave it to the boyz to duke it out.

    I love it. Thanks, violet, great post.

  101. Violet says:


    The analogy is to reproductive rights. See the Roberts confirmation story and Obama’s overtures to anti-choicers.

  102. Violet says:

    The Democrats haven’t been earning our votes for a long time. They let Roberts and Alito be confirmed to the Supreme Court. And now, on top of that, to allow/encourage/participate in the sexist attacks on the first woman with a real chance at the Presidency — why do they deserve our votes? They don’t.

    People who say “you have to vote Democrat because the Republicans are worse” don’t understand basic bargaining. If women vote Democrat no matter what, then there’s no impetus for the Democratic Party to champion our rights. None. We only have power if it’s clear that our votes have to be earned.

  103. Mia says:

    As a lifelong Democrat and a die-hard Senator Clinton supporter, I thought hell would freeze over before I could vote for a Republican. Well, grab your coats because it’s about to get real cold! I promise that if Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee, I will vote (and possibly campaign) for Senator John McCain. I am not a racist (as Obamabots like to claim) and I am neither white, working class, Hispanic, or uneducated. I do not fit into the neat box that the media has classified as Hillary supporters. I’m a highly educated, highly compensated, Asian American female that is angry about the extreme left wing’s destruction of the Democratic party I once loved so fervently. There is definitely a deep divide between the Democratic party between the McGovern losers on the left and the Clinton legacy in the center. The majority in this great country are moderates – not left wing liberals or right wing conservatives. What Senator Obama and his supporters don’t understand is that Clinton supporters are really angry and we WILL vote for John McCain because he is experienced, qualified, patriotic, decent, and a moderate. We (the Democratic Center) will NEVER vote for Obama because he lacks not only the experience to be president, but also the judgment and character. We will not vote for someone with such despicable associations to racists and terrorists. We will never forgive him for playing the race card and accusing the Clintons (who have spent a lifetime fighting for civil rights) of being racists. If the Republican Party and John McCain want to win this November, they need to move their party to the center. They can win our votes. Just show Senator Clinton and her supporters the respect that Obama, the Democratic Elite and the misogynistic Obama press core never showed to us.

    Although I consider myself pro-choice, I do not consider John McCain’s pro-life stance the greatest threat to gender equality. As a feminist, what I find most threatening is the despicable treatment of Hillary Clinton by the Obama campaign, Democratic Elite, and MSM. It amuses me that the elitist liberals on the left are so concerned about female reproductive rights, yet they are not repulsed by the misogynistic treatment Hillary has received throughout this campaign.

    The Party Elite supports Barack Obama so blindly because they fear that the African-American population will riot in Denver if Obama is not the nominee. They think that Hillary supporters will be easier to pacify. They do not think we are as passionate and dedicated as Obama supporters, but they are dead wrong.

    As a woman in her mid-thirties, I’m old enough to remember what it was like to have to deal with sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace. I think most women my age and older have experienced at least once what it’s like to lose a promotion to a younger man with no experience, qualifications, accomplishments or judgment. All our lives we have had to work twice as hard and be twice as smart just to be noticed. Then, Hillary comes along and she is brilliant, talented, hard-working, knowledgeable, and seriously accomplished. I have watched almost every single Democratic debate and I’ve seen as many speeches and interviews of hers that I can find. This woman is truly amazing. She has all the qualities necessary to make a great president. But, then history repeats itself and the glass ceiling we had hoped had been broken is stronger than ever. It’s been reinforced with the worse tenets of Affirmative Action.

    I am not saying that as a woman I feel it was our turn to have a President. All I (and many millions of Hillary supporters) wanted (and still want) is just a degree of fairness. If Hillary had been treated with decency, dignity and respect, we wouldn’t be so angry. From the disgusting pundits on MSNBC and CNN to idiotic super delegates like Donna Brazile and John Kerry, I’ve had enough. Every time the Democratic Elitists like Ted Kennedy suggest she quit, I’m disgusted at the hypocrisy. Kennedy was behind by several hundred delegates when he ran against incumbent Jimmy Carter and Kennedy took it all the way to the convention. Why is everyone so insistent she step aside for “unity” when no other male candidate in Democratic history was asked to do the same?

    Women like me support Hillary Clinton because we see in her all that we hope to be: brilliant, courageous, and fearless. To the MSM, Democratic Elite, and Obama campaign, BEWARE – because as they say, “Hell has no fury like a woman scorned”!

  104. Max says:

    Life long Democrat here – I cant vote for a Republican or 3rd party candidate, but still, I will never vote for Barack Obama. I knew that after the South Carolina primary.

  105. Tammy G says:

    Followed a link here from Taylor Marsh. I am glad I found you too because this is some real talk!

    I am a black lesbian and a strong supporter of Hillary. After my previous candidate, Dennis Kucinich dropped out of the race, I remained neutral until Obama got the holy ghost and put up Donnie McChickenhead and the rest of the anti-gay holy rollers on parade in SC. That was my first sign of what a bigot he was and I am glad that as the campaign goes on my decision is vindicated. I would not piss on that man if he were on fire. He is a phony and an empty suit, nothing but a Democratic version of that moron currently squatting in the White House. The fact that he and his koolaid swilling cultists are getting a pass on their sexism is not surprising to me at all. If anything this election has done some good in that it has exposed all the sexism, classism and homophobia that has festered in this party for years. Especially among so-called “progressives”.

    I would also like to say the blatant sexism of Obama cultists is not restricted to the blogosphere…almost daily at my job some insecure little boy is making some sexist remark about Hillary. They know not to do it to my face because they will get regulated. As a “prank” one of the Limbaugh listening right wingers printed out about a dozen pictures of Hillary, defaced them and put them all over the desk of the main Hillary-hating Obot in the office. One of these, the one taped to his trashcan, even had a pink triangle on Hillary’s forehead. I feel so sorry for the straight women that have to pick a husband out of these troglodytic motherfuckers.

  106. Adrienne in CA says:

    OK, on #103 we have an educated Asian 30-something, and on #105 we have a black Lesbian. What’s next — Latina single mom? Maybe I’m paranoid, but something about these two, longish, highly articulate and persuasive comments makes me a little uncomfortable. Not that any GOP operatives might wanna drop by and mess with our heads…


  107. teresa says:

    Adrienne, you just dont get it, do you? As a nurse, I can tell you that millions of people are without health insurance.. Those are the ones I represent..I have seen thousands of deaths from people who put off going to the doctors because they didnt have the money.. Doctors do have a right to turn away people without insurance.. By the time these people get to the emergency room, it is too late for them..That is just one of the many reasons I want hillarys plan, which includes adults, not only children..It will be McClain then a run by Hillary again in 4 years..I will NEVER NEVER vote for Obama.. He will destroy the United States, 57 of them, I believe Obama said.

  108. blondie says:

    I’m hoping to vote for Hillary and am undecided about what to do if she stops running. There are some pretty persuasive comments here, as well as, of course, Violet’s main post. I will say that if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate, he has a lot of work to do, mending fences with the women of the U.S. His is not the only “historic” candidacy in this race.

  109. Jeff says:

    stxabuela, I hear you and respect that position. The sexism that a lot of Obama supporters has been repulsive, and I can certainly see how that would turn anyone off to voting for Obama. Frankly, I wish he’d speak to it directly, and tell people to knock it off.

    Sheesh. It’s one of the reasons I’m not completely in his camp.

    I don’t think any vote is “thrown away.” And, truth be told, I don’t know that O’Brien would have been an effective governor. Just, in hindsight, I think she would have been better than Romney.

    In my heart of hearts, I still believe Jill Stein would have been the best governor.

    Anyway, all I know is that, whoever the nominee is, they’ll be a hell of a lot better than McCain. But I do understand that that’s not enough for a lot of people — and I respect that.

  110. Ciccina says:

    Oh my god! I thought I was alone in thinking this way!

    Violet, you have nailed my feelings exactly as have many of the commentors.

    I posted something like this on my own little blog (readership: 3) http://thelurkingcanary.blogspot.com/2008/02/screw-you-guys-im-going-home.html. I had no idea how many people felt the same way.

    Thank you Violet!!!

  111. Violet says:

    Adrienne, the comments you mention are perfectly in keeping with the range of feedback I usually get here, and I’ve been blogging for almost two and half years. They just seem to me like my usual readers. There’s nothing suspicious about identifying as Asian-American or a Black lesbian.

  112. Adrienne in CA says:

    To Teresa, believe me, I get it. That’s why I maxed out for Hillary and am phoning for Hillary and will write-in Hillary as I mentioned in my earlier comment.

    To Violet, I’m sure you’re right. No doubt the faint pattern-alert in the back of my brain at several demographically identified comments in short succession is just the stress of this long and tense campaign. I meant no disrespect to your readers and most particularly none to the groups themselves. It’s just that there’ve been some strange goings on of late in progressive blogs generally, and I’m always suspicious of foul play.


    P.S. I’m a latte-driking, Prius-driving, Howard Dean-voting, political actiist white woman, so I guess I don’t entirely fit the pro-Hillary stereotype either.

  113. Kali says:

    If Obama gets this nomination, we really need to start up some grass-roots movement for McKinney. Just look at that platform. It is amazing. I didn’t even know that. There’s nothing to lose (since Obama is not all that different from McCain anyway) and everything to gain. How do we do this?

  114. Susan Mayhew says:

    THANK YOU all… I’ve been so depressed at the tenor of the Obama campaign. A lot has been said about him trying to get party unity – are these people high? After coasting in on woman-hating – where is my place in the Party? After emotionally raping women in Hillary’s name, they want us back???? This is just more evidence of Barack’s hubris – he can do anything – hurt anyone but since he’s black no criticism can be made. When Penn Gillette can make this joke ‘Obama won in February because it was Black History Month, Hillary won in March because it was White Bitch Month’… to screaming laughter from Obamaniacs – why would I join them? Why would I join the disgusting women-hating mob?

  115. Susan Mayhew says:

    The further threat to women by the Obama fascists is that a Supreme Court nominee would be anti abortion and tip the court for decades. Here is a list of the Senators who voted for Alito – all Democrats:
    Arkansas – Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes
    Colorado – Salazar (D) Yes
    Connecticut – Lieberman (D) Yes
    Delaware – Carper (D) Yes
    Florida – Nelson (D) Yes
    Hawaii – Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes
    Iowa – Harkin (D) Not Voting
    Louisiana – Landrieu (D) Yes
    Montana – Baucus (D) Yes
    Nebraska – Nelson (D) Yes
    New Mexico – Bingaman (D) Yes
    North Dakota – Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes
    South Dakota – Johnson (D) Yes
    Washington – Cantwell (D) Yes
    West Virginia – Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes
    Wisconsin – Kohl (D) Yes
    The following voted by Roberts:
    * Max Baucus (D – MT)
    * Jeff Bingaman (D – NM)
    * Robert Byrd (D – WV)
    * Thomas Carper (D – DE)
    * Kent Conrad (D – ND)
    * Christopher Dodd (D – CT)
    * Byron Dorgan (D – ND)
    * Russell Feingold (D – WI)
    * Tim Johnson (D – SD)
    * Herb Kohl (D – WI)
    * Mary Landrieu (D – LA)
    * Patrick Leahy (D – VT)
    * Carl Levin (D – MI)
    * Joseph Lieberman (D – CT)
    * Blanche Lincoln (D – AR)
    * Patty Murray (D – WA)
    * Bill Nelson (D – FL)
    * Ben Nelson (D – NE)
    * Mark Pryor (D – AR)
    * Jay Rockefeller (D – WV)
    * Ken Salazar (D – CO)
    * Ron Wyden (D – OR)
    Let’s stop listening to the terror tactics of the Obama mob – the Congress confirms the Supreme Court nominees – it is not a decision by the president alone – anyone remember Robert Bork???
    I will never vote for someone who is riding on the disgusting venom of his supporters. They’ve gone too far and they’ve lost the chance to get me back.
    If Donna Brazile thinks that the New Dem party doesn’t need the white working class vote, or the woman vote, she’s nuts and the November election will prove her wrong.
    Women are 51% of the population! Blacks are 13% and the ‘Youth Vote’ means that we’d get our president from the idiots on YouTube. The arrogance is appalling – BO wins in states Democrats don’t win – and this BS about being a ‘uniter’ only brings Dubya to mind.
    This is the life-by-magic crowd – as every 4 year old knows, if you say it is so, it is.
    NO VOTE for the con man.

  116. descanso says:

    Great post. It’s difficult to deal with this level of rage on a daily basis. I feel like I’ve been battered for the last five months. Hillary is great, though. A true inspiration in ass-kicking tenacity. I am tremendously proud of her.

    A vote for Obama would feel like sticking a knife in my own gut. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it’s been a rough day.

    Please keep the great posts coming. There will soon be even fewer blogs where people who refuse to vote for Obama will feel welcome.

  117. Jo MacAulay says:

    Well said. The bashers are underestimating the number of people, especially women, who will exit the Democratic Party this year and NOT vote for Obama if he’s the nominee. I’ll never vote for him. A vote for Obama is a vote for misogyny and crooked politics disguised as hope and change. I’ve been watching, a lot, and I still don’t know what “change” means to BO. Haven’t heard anyone brave enough to ask him, either. It would be laughable if it weren’t so f’ing serious for all our futures. Some say this has been an exciting time for the democratic process! but it feels like I’ve stepped through the looking glass. GO HILLARY!

  118. BAC says:

    Excellent post!!


  119. julia says:

    I’ve learned a lot from this blog. I’m voting for as many women in Oregon as I can – even the complete unknown in the senate race. If I’m a feminist, then I’ll back the women, unless their platforms are too conservative. No one else is doing it – if we want representation, we’ve gotta do it ourselves.

  120. david says:

    I am a man and I have been on the ground in 6 states for Hillary. Last December I was honestly enthusiastic to vote for any of Hillary’s rivals if she should lose. however I have never seen such tolerance for sexism in my life.

    I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate that tolerates, encourages, embraces and abets sexism to win.

    I do not like John McCain. However given the choice to vote for a centrist Republican who will move his party towards the center or a Democrat who will rule the White house and the DNC with supporters who embrace sexism……I think I may vote Republican for the first time in my life.

    Do not take 50% of the population for granted and expect them and their supporters to make nice in November.

  121. Kim says:

    I guess I’ll be the lone voice of dissent (which I detail in my blog today) that thinks this is not the way to go.

    So let me get this straight…you won’t vote for a Democrat because it’s not Hillary in an attempt to protest what you believe is the neglect of “everybody that’s not a rich white man.” Do you not realize that by doing this you are going to cause more harm to the very people you pledge to care for?

  122. Susan Mayhew says:

    “So let me get this straight…you won’t vote for a Democrat because it’s not Hillary in an attempt to protest what you believe is the neglect of “everybody that’s not a rich white man.” Do you not realize that by doing this you are going to cause more harm to the very people you pledge to care for?”
    NO no wonder you are an Obama supporter – again missing the point because you are blinded by your savior.
    NO – I won’t vote for him because he is a misogynist. Now convince the group that he’s the ONE… and he’ll call you ‘sweetie’ as he did a reporter on Tuesday.Read his wife’s thesis, listen to his pastor of 20 years… this will be like voting for Hitler.
    Count me out.

  123. Lynn says:

    Thank you so very much! I’m an older white woman who’s furious, but I’d begun to wonder if there was something wrong with me. Finally I’m reading posts from others who feel as I do and are spelling it out. I’ve sent for the forms and intend to register as an Independent after decades as a Democrat. My husband is for Hillary but says he’ll vote McCain over Obama. I won’t give McCain my vote, but Obama won’t get it either. It will be a write-in most likely.

    This election cycle has been the worst of my life and many have been bad. All this time and I truly didn’t realize how much women are hated in this country.

  124. marcia muldoon says:

    I was just notified about your post. Thank you for expressing my viewpoints so intelligently. As a woman and lifelong Democrat, throughout this primary, I have felt betrayed by the party and by the media who participated in constant abuse of Hillary Clinton and, as a result, abuse of all women. I have been further disappointed by my female friends who have been willing to overlook the blatant, misogynous attacks on Senator Clinton because of some misplaced loyalty they feel toward the Democratic Party.

    I was working on my own essay about why I could not vote for Obama when I discovered yours. My decision to snub my Party this year and not vote for Obama has been reinforced by your fine article. I will share your article with my friends as I continue to write my own version of the reasons I will not be marking my ballot for Obama in the general election.

  125. Donkey Brazziere says:

    NObama-No Way

  126. Violet says:

    Kim, everything after “so let me get this straight…” is wrong. Try re-reading.

  127. Kim says:

    I did read it. You’re voting for either (1) a third party candidate or (2) a republican, which in either case is just giving a high five to McCain on his way to the White House. I get what your statement is, I just think that in making it you end up acting in direct opposition to your intent.

  128. Susan Mayhew says:

    Nobama – No Way. His crowd has no respect for me – why would I ever join them?
    I don’t believe he’ll win anyway – he’s had an easy ride with the guilty whites – the big bad grownups on the Right will not treat him with awe – Rush is already saying that he’d be nothing it he were white… (sounds credible to me)

  129. beth says:

    What a great website. I will be voting McCain if Sen. Clinton does not get the Nomination. I will not ever vote for Barack Obama!! He has been a big disappointment to the Democrat Party. This party has move to a different direction that I do not agree with anymore and the horriable treatment of women from the Obama supporters and Obama champaign.We have to vote for McCain, if we dont,Obama will have a better chance of winning and we would not want that to happen. We must all vote is possible for McCain or our votes will be spread out all over the place and that would help Obama. Ladies let make an impact as a group.

  130. Kat says:



    But the Roe v. Wade issue isn’t cut and dried. Given Obama’s support for John Roberts (see here) and his intention to work with Republicans, I have no confidence that he will appoint reliably pro-choice justices. I think what matters most to Obama is whether somebody was on Harvard Law Review.

    Furthermore, we as women cannot allow Roe v. Wade to be held over our heads in this way. Are we supposed to take whatever the Dems dish out, just for the chance (an iffy chance) of preserving a majority on the Court? And what kind of situation is this, anyway, when women’s rights hang on the whims of a few old men with lifetime appointments to the bench?


    Exactly. If women’s basic rights are so tenuous, hanging by such a thread, then the young women the media is lauding should step out from behind their text messaging and take to the streets. Because what we think is a democracy is clearly a lie, and voting for the lesser of two evils will only serve to mask that lie.

    Bloody brilliant. Obama will never, ever have my vote and I wouldn’t trust him with SCOTUS noms anyway. He’d pander to whatever way the wind blew, as long as his ego was stroked. However, if he is annointed king by the media, I would vote for Cynthia McKinney with joy – excellent idea.

  131. Cathy in Indiana says:


  132. frenly says:

    As a Black college educated young male I should be solidly in the Obama camp. However I am not, nor will I ever be. It is not only the blatant sexism of his campaign, his inexperience, and his childish antics (“brushing off” a former first lady and US Senator) that turn me off. I cannot abide the way the MSM and the Obama campaign has so readily dismissed and demeaned millions of Americans as being somehow racist if they do not vote for him, or ignorant and uneducated. I am a moderate, and generally lean Democratic. I’ve never pulled the lever for a Republican in a presidential campaign, though I did vote for one in congressional elections, largely because of his courageous and consistent anti-war vote. This year for the first time, I am willing to vote for McCain because he isn’t so far right that I can’t stomach him.

    From reading the diversity of opinions on this post, it seems Obama’s “unifying” campaign has caused more disunity in the Democratic party than ever. He’s managed to anger the far left feminists because of his sexism, and the moderates because of his elitism. The Dems are crazy if they think they can simple take these voters for granted.

  133. Diane says:

    Violet, why wasn’t my comment posted? I tried to post it back in May 8th.

    It still states that it is awaiting moderation, see below.

    Diane says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “The Obamabots just tell more jokes and hurl more insults and write more crass articles about how the little lay-dees have their little pan-tees in a twist.”

    What Crass articles? I am ecstatic that Hillary has opened many doors and continues to do so, however as a very progressive woman, I do not believe in voting for a candidate just because she is a woman. I don’t know what you read or what you heard to believe that Obama is a misogynist. Both Obama and Hillary believe in women’s rights. Obama is pro-choice and is married to a strong woman who not only had to face adversity due to her gender but also because of the color of her skin. He grew up surrounded by women…raised by women and knows their plight. However you vote, vote for what is best for this Country (for all of us..women and men). If Hillary loses the nomination, and your vote goes to McCain or elsewhere, McCain will win. Then us women will have something to worry about. He already vowed to put more conservative judges on the Bench. I for one, have worked hard as a Latina woman coming from a culture that does not take woman’s right seriously. I have worked hard to break out of that and become a college graduate and eventually an attorney. I want this for my future daughters and all young woman. Please do not decide to “not vote” or “vote for McCain.”

  134. Violet says:

    Diane, I don’t have a comment from you other than this one, so your earlier one must have gotten deleted in a purge of trollism.

    You ask “what crass articles”? Well, you could read the post I just put up that mentions a bunch of them, but that’s not even up to date. Just in the past week we’ve seen Obama supporters describe Hillary as the “psycho ex-girlfriend” of the Democratic party and compare her to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. Plus there’s simply the bizarre circumstance of the candidate with the lead in the popular vote and almost a tie in the delegate count being ignored and dismissed like a …well, like a girl tagging along trying to play a game where she’s not wanted. Just ignore her, guys, and she’ll go away.

    I don’t believe in voting for a woman simply because she’s a woman, and I don’t expect anybody else here believes that either. If Hillary were a Republican, an anti-choicer, an anti-feminist, or in some other way unqualified, I sure wouldn’t be supporting her. But she’s none of those things. She’s a brilliant, supremely qualified, solidly Democratic Senator.

    I see no reason to believe Obama is reliably pro-choice. You can scan through the comments here to find links to the Roberts nomination story, his chatting up of anti-choicers, and so forth. As for Michelle, well, her attacks on Hillary as a woman who “couldn’t keep her own house in order” make me doubt that she has a feminist bone in her body.

    I’ve worked all my adult life for women to have a place at the table in national politics, for our rights to be a bedrock part of the Democratic party. The Obamabots do not want that. They have made it quite clear that their “new” Democratic Party has no room for women — or for working-class folks or Latinos/Latinas or seniors or anybody who isn’t one of them. If you vote for Obama, you’re voting for that new Democratic party — a party with no place for you.

  135. Violet says:

    I get what your statement is, I just think that in making it you end up acting in direct opposition to your intent.

    It’s a short-term trade-off. Do you not get that? Basic bargaining. Just as nobody would expect AAs in my analogy to continue to support Democrats, nobody should expect that of women either. Our power is in our votes, and showing the Democrats that they can’t win without us — and we won’t vote for them unless they support us.

    We can afford to lose one election cycle if that’s what it takes to bring the Democrats into line. Otherwise, we won’t have ANY party representing us. (Except the Greens, which is where I’m seriously considering re-focusing my political energy.)

  136. huh says:

    what i don’t get… is the odd comment above that states that their vote is going for mccain… huh… is he not an exercise in how to define misogyny… and elitism… one of the central themes of the republican party is to find ways to put more money into the hands of people who have to much money in the first place…

    fwiw vote green if you are not voting for the dems… if obama is on the ballot…

    ow and hey, while i am posting… help some sisters in need via microcredit by visiting http://www.kiva.org … love to see spaces like this on the net…

  137. Adrienne in CA says:

    Cathy in Indiana,
    That’s not true. Each state has different rules about write-in votes. Here’s a group that’s collecting the information.


    Writing in Hillary may not be counted at all, but it definitely won’t be counted toward another candidate.


  138. Melanie says:

    Wonderful rant – amen, sister. We as women are just supposed to WAIT. Hell we waited til 1920 to vote, we just have to WAIT to be treated fairly too. For how long? No clue.

    It’s not enough…for me…to NOT vote for Obama. I have to vote AGAINST him. I’m voting for McCain.

  139. Chinaberry Turtle says:


    This post is so freaking AWESOME! It sums up perfectly everything I’ve been feeling in this campaign. I just now found this entry, after being utterly dismayed at Obama’s “sweetie” comment to the professional reporter lady.

    You are amazing.

  140. Chinaberry Turtle says:

    Can somebody tell me about this Green party stuff? Are they for women’s rights, or just environmental stuff? I don’t know anything about it. I was planning to write-in Hillary in the general election, but this Green Party thing is intriguing.

  141. Violet says:

    Chinaberry Turtle, here are the Green Party’s Ten Key Values (the link is to their page):

    1. Grassroots Democracy
    2. Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
    3. Ecological Wisdom
    4. Non-violence
    5. Decentralization
    6. Community-Based Economics and Economic Justice
    7. Feminism and Gender Equity
    8. Respect for Diversity
    9. Personal and Global Responsibility
    10. Future Focus and Sustainability

    The Greens are more of a force in Europe than in the States. The only time they really made the national radar screen here was when Ralph Nader ran on their ticket in 2000, when he was blamed for being a spoiler for Gore. At the time I tended to agree, but I’ve reached the point where I feel drastic action must be taken to keep the Democrats from becoming just another Republican party. Well, they’re pretty far down that road as it is, but the Obamabot contingent will take it all the way. They’re basically just Young Republicans. In their minds, of course, they’re totally different, but really they’re all just little Jonah Goldbergs.

    At any rate, a bunch of people are saying that if we can’t salvage the Democratic Party, then it’s time to make a third party a potent force. Actually those two things are not entirely contradictory, since a third party would function as a lever on the Democrats. People say we need a National Women’s Party, but it seems to me that joining up with the Greens would be easier than starting from the ground up. Besides, I agree with everything on the Green platform. What’s not to like?

  142. AC-n-NC says:

    I will not vote for who the media and the blogger boyz push down my throat. One way or the other I am voting for Hillary Clinton, whether I pull the lever or write her name in, either way, I am voting for Hillary .

    PS: I have an almost clear favorite file now as all the blogger boys have been wiped out for being like the MSM they crashed the gate to save us from, maybe I should make a talking points memo and post it. Anyway , you are now on my favorites.

  143. Denise says:

    Thank you for so succinctly describing the phenomenon that is Obamania. I’m not voting for him and the boys club in Nov. I might be a stubborn fool but I’m no enabler.

  144. Deb says:

    If Hillary is not the official nominee, which I still feel she can be, we can all WRITE HILLARY IN. We don’t have to vote against Obama. We can WRITE HILLARY IN! She would really make history!

  145. Cathy in Indiana says:

    Obama has hired 400 bloggers to make “nice” and some of them are on here begging you to not vote for McCain or Hillary , Dont listen to
    them They are trolls ! They think if you vote Green or vote other they will still get Obama in as President
    Please don’t fall for that
    VOTE for HILLARY when your state allows write-ins or VOTE for MC CAIN to stop the obama mess

  146. Denise Estrada says:

    Please notify me. I have been trying to find womencountpac@gmail.com but cannot be linked to sign the petition to the super delegates because me and several of my friends are also interested in signing the petition telling them to elect Clinton because she is the strongest fair and just canidate.

  147. VeraSimilitude says:

    Welcome me to the club. I have endured enough Obama snottiness from the spousal unit, friends, and perfect strangers, and know better than to get into with with my former Naderite, now Obamabot, always self-congratulatory brother, lest I have to put him back on my shitlist.

    Put in your earplugs, folks-the mouse is about to roar.

  148. Tony Smith says:

    I wrote and posted this on Taylor Marsh. I am not voting for him either!

    Boycotting Obama Will Lead to Famine, Armaggeddon, Government-Controlled Uteruses, and other Scare Tactics

    We have seen a lot of desperate Democrats suddenly scrambling to “unify” with Clinton’s supporters, now that they realize that their snowjob of an election has caused turmoil and will lead to an Obama boycott in November. The classic response to our anger says that we need to relax, take a deep breath, not let emotions cloud judgment, and to think about Roe, your uterus, Third World uteruses, Iraq, thousands of dying soldiers, the economy, Bush III, and many other desperate pro-Obama talking points designed to crush the boycott and instill fear. Well, here’s my answer (disclaimer: I do not have a uterus).

    First of all, I do not need to clear my head and take a deep breath. I did not start voting yesterday, unlike many of Obama’s supporters. Instead, I am a lifetime Democrat, and I have been voting for Democrats locally, state-wide, and nationally since the mid-80s. I am very experienced having my candidate lose, but then moving on to support the party ticket. In past primaries, for example, I voted for Dean, Bradley, and Jesse Jackson (twice!). I get the idea of party unity, so stop treating me like a kid.

    Second, my vote in November goes beyond the liberal “issues” you describe: it protests liberal hypocrisy. The party espouses an equality rhetoric but has been completely dishonest and contradictory during this election. The party has bashed poor white people and people whose last names are Clinton. The party has has ignored Latino voters because recognizing them challenges the “only racists vote for Clinton script.” The party has invented claims of racial injustice to demonize the Clintons. The party has ridiculed “uneducated” voters, even though Democrats supposedly represent disadvantaged people. Male party members and liberal media have constantly called for Clinton to drop out — starting after Iowa — in order to place an aura of doubt around her campaign. The party has ignored voters in Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize Howard Dean’s bad judgment. The party has completely ignored or even denied the sexist treatment of Clinton, while responding with absolute venom to any real or imagined “racism” directed towards Obama. The party has allowed Obama to wear multiple racial hats — the nonracial black man, the just black enough to be an historic black president, and the black racial victim –- to secure votes. If Clinton deviates even slightly from a prior script, she is portrayed as a horrible witch who would do “anything to get elected.” I refuse to join this madness.

    In April, Obama pranced around and described Clinton as “Annie Oakley” gunning her way through Pennsylvania for votes. But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up — another “precious” Obama moment. Recently, CNN.COM posted footage of some mesmerized journalist covering Obama’s jeans. Why should I have to endorse this mayhem?

    Third, I am unmoved by the progressive issues that the pro-Obama side uses to scare us into voting for him. But you got to love “the horror”: If you vote for McCain or don’t vote for Obama, the Supreme Court will overrule Roe, thousands of men and women will die in Iraq, poor people will remain poor, the environment will decline, we will not achieve peace on earth and domestic tranquility, and you will deprive “our children” from having a “great country.” I feel a tear coming!

    These are just Karl Rovian “red alerts.” Obama is not entitled to our votes. He did not earn my loyalty. Whatever loyalty the party had from me prior to this election has been depleted. Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts and instead focused on the big rock star pep rallies, Obamania, Camelot, weeping college students, and a host of other unimportant concerns. People could not tell us specifically why they supported him, but they knew that he was the best and that he would bring “change.” They told us that we and Clinton were cold and unhopeful and that emotions and inspiration were more important. Clinton was a mere “policy wonk,” while Obama made people “feel good again.” Well, enjoy your Hallmark moments and stop being two-faced. Suddenly, you want to talk about the issues because it benefits Obama. Earth to my fellow Democrats: Obama’s success does not dictate the way I vote.

    I am still focused on issues, but topics beyond your “red scare” alerts are important to me as well. My vote responds to a party of hypocrites who dismiss loyal Democrats, bash older folks and women, and manipulate race – while calling it “progressive.” My protest is about not wanting to be a part of a vote that legitimizes sexism. I do not wish to condone the younger Democrats’ misunderstanding of the Republican witch hunts that hurt all Democrats in the past — what they call “Clinton scandals,” when every honst person recalls them as Ken Starr scandals! Where was the “education” on this issue by party veterans? The DNC rushes to bash McCain for his 100 years comment, which reputable entities like Factcheck.org say was not even true, but Clinton is misportrayed abundantly and all we get is silence. Party leadership and the media sharply denounce anything that could negatively impact Obama. They describe legitimate and fair criticism of him as racist, mean-spirited, evil, or “Clinton politics.” Clearly the party leadership has determined that anytime he looks weak, the “boys” will endorse him or call for Clinton to leave because she is “hurting the party” and “kneecapping” the “first viable black presidential candidate” – as if Clinton alone should bear responsibility for remedying the country’s history of racism which has kept people of color out of high office. Well, party leadership and media, you made these rules; suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Obama, don’t tell me my disgust with your behavior doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me sexism doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me liberal hypocrisy doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me fake racial politics doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me I must vote for Obama in order to be a “real” Democrat. If being a real Democrat means bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership! Achieving justice requires sacrifice, brutal honesty, and passionate commitment. I will not “endorse anything to get a Democrat elected,” and neither should you.

    – A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want More…..

  149. Susan Mayhew says:

    Tony Smith – thank you a million times – I honestly have tears of gratitude for your post.
    How has the Obama campaign missed this message – a message that is so deeply felt by millions of us?
    I’m continually incredulous at how the misogynist media underplays Obama’s flaws. Tim Russert brought up Barack’s latest, pandering flier sent to people in Kentucky – Obama at a pulpit with a cross behind him.No mention that this is the guy who called church-goers ‘desperate’. Is the patronizing too subtle for the mainstream press. Do that think that any of us of any race have forgotten that Obama dismissed many us in ridicule. Apparently not while the likes of Tim Russert rule the tv.

    I have to say ‘thanks again’ for Tony’s post – it is a righteous piece that should inspire us all.
    Keep the faith – this fiasco will not turn out well for the con man.

  150. Asian in California says:

    Fantastic post!

    What about Chris Matthews’ comment that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be where she is today if it weren’t for Bill’s Monica Lewinsky affair? Like her experience, intelligence and record count for nothing.

    The Chosen One is juvenile as well as inexperienced. Flipping the bird and brushing off Hillary might seem kewl to the hip kids, but do we want such childish antics from our POTUS? Not me. I won’t vote for him.

  151. American Woman says:

    Great Post..To me it’s worse than just the way Hillary has been treated as a woman but the total lack of respect as a former first lady who I am and have always been proud of…Hillary’s supporters are hard working Americans and we will wage a “Quiet Protest” in November when we cast our votes for John McCain…even now they continue to say we don’t need those votes to win…It’s a new democratic party. The dems have left us…we didn’t leave them. Check out this new video if anyone hasn’t seen it.and thank you for the opportunity to post.

    God Bless Hillary Clinton and God Bless America

    We’ve Come A Long Way Baby!!! I’ll bring you tears.


  152. Tony Smith says:

    Hi, Susan — you’re welcome. Feel free to circulate it. I think we have to make each other feel comfortable. The Roe/War/Loyalty arguments are bouncing around all over the web.

  153. BryceM says:

    Hillary’s supporters are hard working Americans and we will wage a “Quiet Protest” in November when we cast our votes for John McCain…

    When your sons and daughters are sent to Iran, please have the courage to admit that you put him in office.

    When McCain puts another anti-abortion judge on the Supreme Court, remember where your vote went.

    I understand you wanting Clinton in office, but if you think that McCain would be BETTER the Obama, you don’t konw McCain’s stance on things.

    That’s okay, though – neither does he.


  154. Violet says:

    Ooh, a Code Orange!

  155. Beth C says:

    The Repubs abused Bill Clinton from the moment he took office, so I knew they hated the Clintons. Until now I had no idea how much the Democrats did also. Dick Durbin and Tom Daschle saw Obama as an empty slate they could control and with the help of the DNC he was annointed to get rid of the Clintons. When Florida and Michigan broke the rules it was a gift to the DNC to further Obama’s coronation. They knew the media would fear criticizing him lest they be called racist, but would continue to be sexist as always. A perfect plan they thought. What they have failed to perceive is that women across America aren’t going to take it anymore, and millions will turn down Obama. What was to be a clear Democratic victory in November will be lost due to Democratic male and anti Clinton stupidity. The black vote won’t trump the white or women vote if Obama is the nominee. Your take on this was excellent.

  156. ginmar says:

    Very handy, that thingie.

  157. James McPherson says:

    My wife and I both support Hillary, but I’m troubled by the fact that my conservative GOP coworkers are now giddy over the fact that women may end up giving McCain the election and, in their view, finally guarantee the Supreme Court Majority that will overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course the reason for the current court majority is that Republicans who disagree on various things–taxation, illegal foreign wars, abortion, etc.–manage to put aside their differences to vote for one bad nominee after another. As a result, we all lose–but progressives have lost the most. And those of us who care about women’s rights likely will be the biggest losers if McCain wins.

  158. Diana says:

    I haven’t read the entire string of comments, so mine may seem out of place, but here goes.

    I’ve worn a t-shirt with a “no blame” sign on the front for the last four years. The back says, “I didn’t vote for him.” I wore it in regard to Bush, and now I will wear it for Obama, IF he wins the nomination.

    The Obamabots who can’t understand that what they are doing is voting as if they were choosing the next American idol and not the President of the U.S. are just superficial people.

    Our ex-mayor of Denver, an African-American man (Wellington Webb) who has supported Hillary all the way, gave the best speech I’ve heard for her. He followed another ex-mayor, a Hispanic man (Federico Pena) who was taken to Washington by Bill Clinton, and who, like many of the power-hungry turncoats in this election, endorses Obama. This man’s speech was about how–wow, he’s Hispanic and he’s voting for Obama; the other guy is African-American and voting for Hillary, so race is not an issue and we’ll all come together.

    The African-American ex-mayor asked us to look around and see who had been running the offices of the precincts, the counties, the campaigns, etc., and getting things dones. He said we could look in the churches, the schools, and the social service organizations and find the same thing: women. He praised Hillary for the work she did for him getting elected as a first Black major and for coming to help the poor women and children in Denver when it was not something she HAD to do. Then he said something to the effect the race was not about race because women like Hillary, women of all color and ethnic groups had already dispelled the myth of the superiority of the white male and we didn’t need to have that done again.

    I was crying, as were other women. And I have heard women who have worked the party machinery say the same thing. If Obama wins, they may not vote–they’ll abstain (one of Obams’s favorite tactics) or vote third party. And some think they may vote for him, BUT they all vow they will not work for him, do the drudge work of the campaign, etc. His campaign will have to work it themselves–without them. Good luck to him finding the email lists, the telephone numbers, the local contacts, etc.

  159. jsb16 says:

    I can’t bear the thought of voting for McCain. The man is scary beyond words, and I’m too much of an idealist to use my vote tactically. I’m less and less fond of Obama as this campaign goes on. I’m not periodically moody, except that assholes tend to force themselves into my life on a periodic basis, I do not hold tea parties, and I want more than “some control” over my body.

    On the other hand, I’m not thrilled by Clinton, either. I don’t agree with labeling Iran’s military a terrorist organization, I personally know a racist Clinton supporter who is convinced Obama is a Muslim terrorist, and I did hear the “hardworking Americans, white Americans” comment and it did sound to me more like she was correcting herself than adding to a list.

    I started this campaign season thinking I’d like whoever the Democrats nominated. Now I’m thinking that I really need to investigate the Greens. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll have a viable third party until we ditch our winner-take-all voting system in favor of a system that allows people to vote for their hopes, rather than against their fears.

  160. Beth C says:

    Not to worry McPhersons. We will gain an even bigger majority in the house and senate without Obama’s help. That majority will vet and prevent any rogue judges who would portend to overturn Roe v Wade from being confirmed. Also that majority in the legistlative branch will be able to pass the things important to us and will have enough power to overide the president’s veto if it is McCain. We already have elected two Democrats for the house in rock solid Republican Southern states, and we will probably elect Mark Warner in Virginia to take John Warner’s place in the senate.

  161. ginmar says:

    Hillary’s every syllable gets over analyzed to death while Obama gets a pass. I’m sick of the Obama bots and the shit they pull. They just lost their candidate my vote.

  162. James McPherson says:

    Beth, you’re far more confident than I am (of course, one advantage to being a pessimist is that one is never disappointed). Even if you’re right that Democrats get a big enough majority to accomplish anything meaningful, it seems that you’re overlooking the kind of Dems that are being elected–folks who in some cases are more conservative than the Republicans they replace.

  163. Beth C says:

    James, Of course we know all the things the candidates are now promising cannot happen overnight. We can’t afford them with this ongoing war. But whether conservative or liberal are the incoming Democratic Congress members they will know why they got elected, and that is to end this war expeditiously which the current slight majority hasn’t been able to do because of Bush’s veto power. I think McCain will be more reasonable than we think whereas Obama will be a fish out of water in the oval office like Jimmy Carter was. Hillary is so right for these turbulent times that it is a shame that the media’s sexism and bias has spoiled it for her. I feel like I’m living in a third world country where all elections are fixed instead of a democracy.

  164. soopermouse says:

    I am a long time lurker, and a Hillary supporter.

    I am starting to see too many people saying “yeah you are right but Roe!” lately. And then I remembered that Obama hired a lot of people to try to woo and appease us silly sweeties, and I became cautious.

    First and foremost: as it has been said before, there is no guarantee Obama will uphold Roe. He has been pandering a bit too much to the anti woman movement not to mention that his whole behavious IS incredibly anti woman, and therefore I do not trust him as a feminist ally bcause he is not. If he had any respect for any woman whatsoever we would not have seen the disgusting campaign he has waged against Hillary.

    Second: John McCain.

    Let us analyze what happens if john McCain gets elected because a ton of hillary supporters voted for him.

    1. 100 year war?
    No. That my friends is a big fucking sack of bullshit. McCain himself has expressed this, explaining that 100 years of military presence is not 100 years of war, unless you are Barack Obama and know fuck all about the difference. The USA has been in Germany for 62 years now, and I dont think theres a war going on there right now.

    2. Roe and SCOTUS.

    First and foremost let me express that legally speaking Roe is a big fuckign bunch of shit. That is obvious considering how easy it has been to pass state anti abortion laws. Ro0e was a patch up solution that doesnt seem to work anymore. Thus, losing Rooe doesnt really mean much considering that the majority of the women in the USA already do not have access to an abortion if they need it.

    Second, the Congress has to approve the judges, and the Congress is majoritary Democratic. Same Democrats who would receive a “you are nothign without us” message if all Hillary supporters vote for Mc Cain that will have to show them that we are not to be taken for granted.

    Voting for MC Cain now is a vote to take back the Democratic Party. In 4 years time, the WH will be taken back and the Democrats would have learned that we are not to be thrown under the bus anymore.

    And I don’t think Mc Cain is as black as people paint him. He didnt get in trouble with the republicans for being ultra conservative.

  165. Susan Mayhew says:

    From the Huffington Post:
    “But what is getting lost under the larger heading of “sexism,” particularly for these Clinton-or-bust supporters, is a reasoned distinction between media and societal sexism, on one hand, and sexism from Barack Obama, on the other.”
    My comment:This is missing the larger point that is being discussed with less bias on other forums. Obama hasn’t won – Hillary has been beaten – not by Barack and his supporters alone, but by the rampant sexism that this campaign has enjoyed. Obama didn’t have to coach Chris Matthews to say ‘She wouldn’t have run New York if her husband didn’t fool around’, or Randi Rhodes calling her a ‘whore’, or Penn Gillette saying ‘Barack won in February because it was Black History Month, she won in March because it was White Bitch Month’, or commission the t-shirt that says ‘too bad Hillary didn’t marry OJ’, or the countless pant suit jokes, laughter jokes etc that demeaned a respected legislator into a clown of disrespect. No – Obama didn’t actively demean Clinton – he didn’t have to and it is the fact that when, for the first time, a woman ran for president, her opponent reaped the benefits of the most virulent sexism ever seen. Whether Obama deserves it or not, his campaign is tainted – by the media bias and his own supporters who have formed a band of demeaning detractors – those who mock her – their penchant for overkill is what will keep Clinton supporters wary at best and rejecting at best.

  166. Beth C says:

    You are right on, Susan. Now that Obama thinks he has the nomination locked up he is saying nice things about Hillary. But his failure to speak out about the media’s sexism toward her during the campaign while now whining about his wife being mistreated has inflamed her supporters even moreso. The media is delusional in saying her supporters will come around by November and vote for him. They are too irate. Personally, I fear his presidency more than McCain’s.

  167. Beth C says:

    Worth us “sweeties” being riled about?



  168. Susan Mayhew says:

    Now the Obama apologists are insisting that Barack never said anything sexist (calling Pelosi ‘cutie’ is of course, ok). And why would he need to say anything more sexist? Barack, a man with little qualifications to be president lucked out by running against a woman in an insanely sexist country. As far back a February, CNN had an article on Racism vs Sexism – Sexism ok, racism not. Look at the defense of Barack’s ‘race’ speech ‘explaining’ the hate speech of Wright.. everyone was teary eyed and Wright – a monster, vanished from the scene because, as Barack pointed out, it was white society that created him. And his minions took up the sexist banner. No Obama did not win – Hillary was beaten – by the talking heads (Olbermann called her ‘David Duke’, she won in White Bitch Month, Randi Rhodes called her a ‘whore’ and got a better job… the toilet seats, the t-shirts, every stand up mocking her clothes, her hair, her laugh, her smile … it was us not getting the vote… it is the homicide rate amongst pregnant women… Salem Witch Trials all over again .. it is the violent hatred of women that Obama was lucky to ride on..and yet 100k votes separate him from her – the hated ‘other’. I thought we had come further than this as a societe and I was wrong. The reason not to vote for Barack is manifest by his lack of virtues for sure – but for me the reason is to strike back against a society that is free to vent it’s hatred on all women.

  169. patricia smith says:


  170. Tony Smith says:

    Huffington is just awful. I was banned the day that Gary Hart spoke out against Clinton — saying that she “crossed a line” by alluding that McCain was more exprienced than Obama (which is true). Well, I surfed around until I found some NY Times articles covering statements he made during his run against Mondale in 84. He was stunningly brutal – saying that the Carter/Mondale administration was inept,clueless, a disaster…and the Reagan craved running against Mondale instead of him. Once I posted that, I was immediately banned.

  171. julia says:

    You all made my day! Especially Susan and Tony.
    This is how the entire campaign should be framed.
    If anything, it’s taken feminists out of hiding or retirement and we’re mad and we’re not gonna take it anymore!
    The Progressive has a good analysis of Obama this month from Adolph Reed Jr, Prof. of PoliSci at Penn State.

  172. cass says:

    Okay. Seriously, as a feminist and a woman, I absolutely hear you. This campaign has been chock-full of sexism and racism, just out there, with no analysis, like it’s all true and honest and joking around in good fun. It’s disgusting.


    Do you, as a woman, really believe that getting women to split the Dem vote by voting Green – thereby opening up a greater chance of another Republican White House – is a good choice for women or for anyone? Especially when multiple members of the Supreme Court are likely to retire in the next four years, and McCain has declared his allegiance to “stopping judicial activism” (*cough*) in the form of nominating more white-alpha-men like Roberts and Alito? I’m not sorry to be voting for the Dem nominee, WHOMEVER it happens to be. A vote is about the issues – and Hillary and Obama are very similar on the issues – not the small bits of racism or sexism that the media pounces on and amplifies until no tomorrow.

    Voting for anyone but the Dem nominee is a vote for more of the SAME: unequal opportunity, continued war, ridiculous “market-based” education and health care policies, surveillance, and the “pro-life” assault on women’s reproductive rights for years and years to come.

  173. julia says:

    We desperately need a third party in this country. We will never get it, or a party that works for us because they are not embedded with the big corporations, if we do not support one. This could be the year to give a real boost to the Greens!

    If we want real change, we have to work for it. That may mean giving something up. The Green party has become a force to reckon with in Germany. It is because of the Green Party that they are using all kinds of alternative energies in a massive change-over from fossil fuels. They did this to end the energy cartel. We will NEVER get this voting Democrat. They are too tied to the corporations that run the cartel.

    Einstein said “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”.

    I’m tired of being insane.

  174. Tony Smith says:

    [Responding to Cass]

    Only the Democrats would decide to run two attractive presidential candidates from the party’s strongest demographic groups in the same year. But things became worse when the party allowed the media to butcher one of the candidates with sexist, racially accusatory, and otherwise hateful rhetoric that inflamed her base of support. Although a line between leading and defending a party and meddling a campaign must exist, if the threat originates outside of the field of candidates, the party should take a role in neutralizing it. The party intervened numerous times, claiming that Clinton campaigned too aggressively against Obama, but it said nothing about the awful treatment of Clinton from the media. This is unacceptable. It means that my party will tolerate sexism either because they hate the individual, or because sexism makes them hate the individual. Either way, that’s inappropriate, and it violates fundamental principles that define my own personal ideology and that shape the party’s political platform – at least rhetorically.

    I do not wish to unify with racist and sexist “liberals.” At least the Republicans don’t pretend to be egalitarian. Maybe this is why the Democrats have been so ineffective; they don’t really support the views they espouse. We need a party that speaks and acts consistently. We can only accomplish this by reforming the mess we already have or by forming a new party, not by compromising fundamental values and electing Obama above all. If we compromise, the party would lack any incentive to change.

    Also, I cannot vote with a “generation” that believes its values supercede all others, especially when its members are unpredictable and unappreciative. Before you accuse me of “hating” the youth, I felt the same way about Generation X – which positioned itself in the same elitist “no-it-all” way. In my black southern background, older people are revered for their knowledge and experience. Certainly, I can question people older than I am, but I have learned that their experiences, especially in combating subordination, are meaningful. Whenever I hear young women say that they just don’t get “feminists,” I want to tell them to drop out of school, ask for 1/2 the average male salary, lay back and “enjoy” rape because they dressed seductively, and forego the right to vote. These young women could understand and appreciate older feminsts, but they do not respect history and are privileged by the activism of older women. Clinton’s staunchest women supporters, by contrast, are women, single mothers, and older. Perhaps because they lack economic privilege, they appreciate and are inspired by the idea of a “tough” woman standing up for them. The Huffingtonpost and Daily-Kos “new feminist” crowd cannot relate to this, so they criticize Clinton’s female supporters for engaging in “identity politics” (or for being racist). Here’s another perspective: These so-called “postmodern” or “post-identity” women do not relate to Clinton’s base because of their own social and economic privilege. Compare their position with blacks who overwhelmingly support Obama. Blacks are socially vulnerable, in terms of both race and class. They, like Clinton’s socially vulnerable white women supporters have dug in their heels with respect to Obama. Some blacks have threatened to riot or to vote for McCain if Clinton wins. Clearly, Obama gives them hope, pride and a sense of justice, and the “new” feminists have not challenged this whatsoever. Clinton similarly inspires poor and older women. When upper-class women denounce poor and older women’s gender loyalty as unwise, they contradict the very message upon which Obama’s campaign rests: the importance of hope and inspiration. They also hypocritically chastise white women, but not blacks for engaging in identity politics. We must hold them accountable for their hypocrisy and arrogance.

    Finally, a word on Roe — the ultimate red alert. An abundance of literature criticizes the feminist movement for centralizing Roe as a social movement objective. Mainstream feminists fail to recognize the ways in which economic barriers, not Court rulings, burden women’s reproductive autonomy. The Supreme Court has watered down Roe almost to the point of nonexistence. The Court does not even apply the rigorous Roe doctrine anymore; instead, it only looks to see whether a law places an “undue burden” in the path of a woman seeking to abort a nonviable fetus. Since the Court developed this malleable standard in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), it has upheld several laws that had previously failed Roe’s “strict scrutiny” test. Now states can require women to read literature designed to deter them from seeking abortions. They can require “24-hour waiting periods,” which means that patients have to schedule two doctor’s appointments, thus exacerbating the cost of the procedure. Even under Roe, the Court had long held that the federal government and states could exclude abortion-related services from coverage under government-sponsored health plans. As a result, abortion is cost-prohibitive for many poor women — unless they receive assistance from organizations like Planned Parenthood. Most recently, the Court, for the first time, upheld an antiabortion law that lacks a health exception. This federal statute bans partial-birth abortion, which usually takes place in the third trimester. Although heavily maligned by Obama’s so-called “progressive” supporters, Bill Clinton vetoed partial-birth legislation two times. As Justice Ginsburg notes in her dissent, poor women, who often lack money to seek an abortion earlier, disproportionately utilize this procedure. Because the public strongly favors this legislation, do not expect the Supreme Court to reverse course, even under an Obama administration. The Supreme Court follows, rather than dictates, public opinion.

    Obama has not stated that he would try to secure federal subsidies for abortion services or to do anything specific to enhance the reproductive choices of poor women. Had he articulated such policies, this would mark a significant change in the abortion debate. Absent such progressive measures, abortion will remain freely open to wealthier women and fairly available to middle-class and poor women – the exact same situation as today. Only policies that recognize the economic constraints on reproduction can disrupt the status quo. Because Obama has not proposed such measures, the Roe argument is merely a scare tactic.

  175. Q says:

    Hi Violet.

    I just would like to say that I usually enjoy reading your articles and usually support them.

    However, I’ve read through this entire post and the comments and I am quite saddened.

    Everyone is entirely justified to their feelings and I support the expression of them.

    Given the direction of the race, I’m unsure of who to vote for, but throughout this race I’ve felt tokenized (grouped in the African American demographic), belittled (as a female) and above all, alienated (as a queer African immigrant), and I’m not the only one.

    Reading these comments only affirms my sentiments.

    I’m not here to argue about identity politics (whether we should vote for Hillary because she is a female or if someone is black enough, as a commenter raised before), although that seems to be a huge part of people’s concerns in the comments. I do not support voting for someone because they are a woman or because they are black, but based on two things: their record and their trustworthiness (which includes their commitment to championing the things they say they will – but Heaven forbid a politician is actually honest.)

    In this respect, both Democratic nominees fail in one respect (or both), at least for me, and please, feel free to debate that.

    As a long-time resident of New York, I saw first hand the animosity my neighborhood, comprised of mostly black and Latino residents, held for Senator Clinton as she first petitioned for the Senate seat. It served to divide our community, in a time when the party needed our support and it disheartened me. I watched Hillary take the seat, all the while wondering whether or not she actually cared enough about the state, or was using the Senate as a stepping stone for a White House Bid. Although she was (as one of my mentors put it) a “workhorse in the Senate”, the senator who I saw the most frequent mention of after 9/11 was Chuck Schumer, as someone who “did something”.

    Well, I don’t know if I agree with that statement, but all this arguing makes me feel as though no side really has my interests in their platform, and I lose on all sides. All the while, people here are complaining about the sexism in the campaign coverage, which I undoubtedly agree with, but who is actually being affected? I hate that Obama supporters, call Hillary a b* or a c* and it’s deplorable, but I also hate the fact that she seemed to be gaining attention in this race because of the recognizability of Clinton name and legacy, not because of her accomplishments, but because people wanted so desperately to go back to the grand-old 90s. Why was it that a woman like Carol Moseley-Braun couldn’t garner enough attention (among other things) to become a viable candidate for the presidency? Surely, sexism is at play here, so doesn’t it seem that this was all set up because of sexism from the very beginning? Popular wife of a former President becomes a serious contender for the White House because she had an amazing Senate record which she could not have gotten without counting on, at least in part, to associations with the legacy of said President.

    Only being defined by that marriage? Even my relatives abroad only know her as the former First Lady.

    This is the strong female role model I have been taught to look up to?

    The only one that could have been taken seriously because of her husband?

    That’s nice. (It’s actually disgusting that this is the only reason she was taken seriously and I want to scream and shout for this to be changed, but apparently, no one is listening)

    And which women are you (commenters included) reaching out to?

    Because sadly, every time I hear: ” I will not vote for Obama, ever. Not ever. I’m bracing myself for the day he finally turns to people like me and display a half ass effort to get my vote.” or “The Party Elite supports Barack Obama so blindly because they fear that the African-American population will riot in Denver if Obama is not the nominee. They think that Hillary supporters will be easier to pacify. They do not think we are as passionate and dedicated as Obama supporters, but they are dead wrong.” or “IMO it isn’t about Obama being sexist. It’s about whether or not we are OK with the Democratic party basically saying they don’t have to do look out for us. Women aren’t important the way blacks are.” or some variation of those statement, I have to wonder.

    That’s not fair.

    I’ve been told that womanhood isn’t as strong a rallying point as race, and look how that dichotomy has fractured the party (almost guaranteeing McCain the presidency).

    It’s so true that people won’t be represented in all elections, but it’s so naive to assume that by rallying behind one person, all of our interests will be served by sheer virtue of us sharing a common (but variable) bond.

    Hooray, politics.

    P.S. I second everything Cass has said, and apologies for the repeats.
    P.P.S: Re: Third Parties: Not going to work because the current system (electoral college) favors the two party system and provides both with benefits neither wants to give up. Plus the minority that votes for the third party steals votes from one major party, which gives the other free reign to steal the election. Sucks.

  176. Susan Mayhew says:

    ‘Voting for anyone but the Dem nominee is a vote for more of the SAME: unequal opportunity, continued war, ridiculous “market-based” education and health care policies, surveillance, and the “pro-life” assault on women’s reproductive rights for years and years to come.’
    I understand your concern but in reality, the congress confirms the Supreme Court nominees AND we have only Obama’s chauvinism to expect little from him on the choice side. Read his stand on choice: he voted ‘present’ on choice-related bulls in Illinois which meant his future political career was more important than abortion rights. This was rationalized as a move to protect fellow democrats – if you can believe that!
    Also: Alito and Roberts were successfully confirmed by Democrats in the house and Senate.Let’s not fall into the Fear trap that BO and his goons are already laying out for us. Barack is NOT a savior – nor is he pro-women – look at who supports him.

  177. Beth C says:

    Hillary makes a offhand remark about other races not concluded until June mentioning Bobby Kennedy’s and immediately the media reads calculated into it, starts covering 24 hours straight, and beats her up because precious Obama was worried about assasination until she feels like she must apologize. What BS when Keith Ollbermann scorches her on his Countdown program.
    How many really calculated comments has Obama made? Plenty and they are ignored by the media.
    I hope all our protest votes send a signal to the media that they don’t choose candidates for the president, but we do.

  178. Q says:

    I’m just wondering why my comment hasn’t been approved when I see others after mine. I hope you do not think I am a troll, because I am not.
    I took alot of time to right that entry, so I would just like to respectfully ask that my comment also be put on your page.
    Thank you.

  179. Q says:

    oh dear, I meant write.

  180. Violet says:

    Q, I don’t have regular internet access right now (see posts re satellite, death thereof, etc.) I’m at my parents’ house right now and checking in my Dad’s computer. May not have access again for a couple of days.

    I don’t have time right now to type out a full response to your comments, but I think you’re missing the point. The issue isn’t who Hillary represents, but how she’s been treated. Obama has encouraged and benefited from sexist attacks on Hillary. In my eyes that renders him unacceptable as a candidate.

  181. Susan Mayhew says:

    Thank you Violet – this is the maddeningly ever present stick of sexism – the sexist culture cannot be easily reached.
    Paul Krugman in today’s New York Times in an op-ed entitled ‘Divided We Stand’ – underscores the damage the Obama campaign has done, not only to Clinton, but to the party itself and the chance of a Democratic presidency, he says of the Clinton bashing:
    ‘Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.’

    Like feminists before us, I believe that the Democratic party has abandoned us – NARAL endorsing Obama – have they ever READ his positions on Choice… and the Supreme Court? Obama voted to confirm Roberts!

    No one cares how damaging this man is to women’s causes.

    When Billy Jean King said sadly that she felt all her accomplishments were worth nothing, I felt her paid and agreed.

    I and old enough to have been brought up when women didn’t count – it was only after my father’s death that I found out my mother had gotten a MA from Columbia in 1932 – 50 years before that revelation.

    I’m bowing out – I’m working for the people who actually effect the law – my congress people. I may not vote for McCain, but I am deeply convinced that Obama is a dangerous choice for the presidency.

  182. Susan Mayhew says:

    This is a brilliant analysis of the Obama dilemma: he and his minions have vilified Clinton and thinking people in general and now they are in a bad spot – NEVER vote for Obama – he deserves to lose!
    Divided They Stand
    Published: May 26, 2008

    It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.
    Skip to next paragraph

    Paul Krugman
    Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal

    This one, in case you missed it, involved an interview Hillary Clinton gave the editorial board of South Dakota’s Argus Leader, in which she tried to make a case for her continuing campaign by pointing out that nomination fights have often gone on into the summer. As one of her illustrations, she mentioned that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.

    It wasn’t the best example to use, but it’s absurd to suggest, as some Obama supporters immediately did, that Mrs. Clinton was making some kind of dark hint about Barack Obama’s future.

    But then, it was equally absurd to portray Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that it took L.B.J.’s political skills to turn Martin Luther King’s vision into legislation as an example of politicizing race. Yet the claim that Mrs. Clinton was playing the race card, which was promoted by some Obama supporters as well as in a memo by a member of Mr. Obama’s staff, achieved wide currency.

    Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

    To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent.

    Indeed, John McCain has shed whatever maverick tendencies he may once have had, and become almost a caricature conservative — an advocate of lower taxes for the rich and corporations, a privatizer and shredder of the safety net.

    But elections always involve emotions as well as issues, and there are some ominous signs in the polling data.

    In Florida, in particular, the rolling estimate produced by the professionals at Pollster.com shows Mr. McCain running substantially ahead of Mr. Obama, even as he runs significantly behind Mrs. Clinton. Ohio also looks problematic, and Pennsylvania looks closer than it should. It’s true that head-to-head polls five months before the general election have a poor track record. But they certainly give reason to worry.

    The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year.

    So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?

    Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.

    Nor should Obama supporters dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s strength as a purely Appalachian phenomenon, with the implication that Clinton voters are just a bunch of hicks.

    So what comes next?

    Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it.

    But mainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party.

    One thing to do would be to make a gesture of respect for Democrats who voted in good faith by recognizing Florida’s primary votes — which at this point wouldn’t change the outcome of the nomination fight.

    The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election?

    What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it. Adding Mrs. Clinton to the ticket — or at least making the offer — might help heal the wounds of an ugly primary fight.

    Here’s the point: the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose. He needs to do everything he can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

  183. jyotinc says:

    I don’t want Obama to win, I’ll vote somebody who had experience like Hillary.

  184. Beth C says:

    Contrary to Mr. Krugman’s views I doubt that Obama would offer Hillary the VP slot. Too many bridges have been burned between them, and Obama seems to always want the spotlight for himself. He will be asking for a serious backlash if he is dumb enough to select another woman for the ticket. Outrage would really swell after the disrespect for Hillary throughout this campaign by fellow Democrats and the media.

  185. Susan Mayhew says:

    FINALLY on the June 1, 2008 show of The Week Howard Dean MENTIONS the sexism that has rocked Clinton’s campaigh:
    DEAN: … There has been enormous amount of sexism in this campaign on the part of the media, including the mainstream media. We’ll leave present company excepted because I think that’s true. But there have been major networks that have featured numerous outrageous comments that if the words were reversed and they were about race the people would have been fired. So that’s a big issue. And there are a lot of women in this country who — there’s two issues here. One is one candidate is ahead and one is not. That happens all the time in primaries, and you get over that. What you don’t get over is deep wounds that have been inflicted on somebody because they happen to be a woman running for President of the United States.”
    Finally – after all the mocking and demeaning and way too late – Dean MENTIONS what has for me been the deciding factor in my hatred of Obama – the fact that this second rate con man has ridden in on women-hating and for that alone he should lose and disappear from the political scene.

  186. Susan Mayhew says:

    Beth C: Hillary makes a offhand remark about other races not concluded until June mentioning Bobby Kennedy’s and immediately the media reads calculated into it, starts covering 24 hours straight, and beats her up because precious Obama was worried about assasination until she feels like she must apologize. What BS when Keith Ollbermann scorches her on his Countdown program.
    How many really calculated comments has Obama made? Plenty and they are ignored by the media.
    I hope all our protest votes send a signal to the media that they don’t choose candidates for the president, but we do.
    AND Axelrod (BO’s Rove) sends transcripts of Keith Olbermann’s rant to ALL new outlets… George Stephanopolous makes an allusion to the trick and Axelrod brushes it aside… on to the next load of bs.

  187. Susan Mayhew says:

    From CNN May 30:”Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign”
    In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago’s gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.
    As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

    Kass, the Chicago Tribune columnist, said the national media are naive when it comes to Chicago politics, which is a serious business.

    He said they have bought into a narrative that Obama is strictly a reformer. The truth, Kass says, is that he is a bare-knuckled politician. And using the rules to win his first office is part of who Obama is.

    “It’s not the tactics of ‘let’s all people come together and put your best ideas forward and the best ideas win,’ ” Kass said. “That’s the spin; that’s in the Kool-Aid. You can have some. Any flavor. But the real deal was, get rid of Alice Palmer.
    “There are those who think that registering people to vote and getting them involved in politics and then using this tactic in terms of denying Alice Palmer the right to compete, that these things are inconsistent. And guess what? They are. They are inconsistent. But that’s the politics he plays.”
    And this weekend, DNC delegates will have to decide what kind of rules it will invoke in helping choose its next candidate.
    …The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.
    “That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice its next candidate.”

  188. Translucent Image says:

    Susan Mayhew cites CNN’s report on Obama’s past:

    “As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.”
    - CNN, May 30th

    Susan, I’m with you 100% on what you yourself have stated here.

    CNN say nothing new in the “Obama played hardball politics” line, and drop the ball when they fail, as usual, to reveal how B.O. actually “organized” the Hyde Park-Kenwood community he was supposed to have been helping.

    You may notice the same deliberate omission in Obama’s Plastic-Coated Bio…

    edit Obama’s résumé yourself!

    …which omits his long, lucrative career as a shyster realty lawyer. Even with generous spin, B.O. only worked for the community for about a year, in 1992– already 2 years after he had begun his long association with Tony Rezko. By 1993, B.O. was at the firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Gall, not helping the community at all but instead making crooked real estate deals so that he and his cronies could profiteer. Today, taxpayers, including senior citizens and tenants in search of affordable safe housing, are still being cheated and disrespected by Backstabber Obama’s too-clever-by-half corporate scheming.

    “As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko’s successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens. The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama’s former boss
    The letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he’s known Rezko, “I’ve never done any favors for him.”
    The development, called the Cottage View Terrace [...] seven-story apartment building for senior citizens on a vacant stretch of land once occupied by a gas station at 48th and Cottage Grove. The city of Chicago owned the land — nearly two acres tainted by lead, benzene and other toxic chemicals.
    Rezko and Davis paid the city $1 for the land and spent more than $100,000 to [...] cover the polluted areas with parking lots, sidewalks or three feet of dirt, records show. The $14.6 million Cottage View Terrace was funded entirely by city, state and federal taxpayers.

    from “Obama’s letters for Rezko” by Tim Novak
    June 13, 2007
    (see also “Obama and his Rezko ties” by same author, same publ.)

    Maybe Susan and I are not the only ones here who are aware the government of Chicago remains that city’s largest slumlord– but also that Michelle Obama’s current employer, the ivy league University of Chicago, has the dubious distinction of being the #1 Slumlord in the Non-gov., For-profit Category. This ironic twist to the Obama real estate story is not too surprising, given the Univ. of Chicago’s entrenched racism, e.g. overcharging what pitiful few African-American, bi-racial and Latino patients are allowed treatment at the University Hospitals, where M.O. is a V.P. earning a $300,000+ salary.

    Do people still doubt M.O. and B.O. are O-so-out-of-touch and elitist? From the top-floor windows of their multi-million mansion, they’ve got a great view of the road ahead to more money, adulation and power. The mansions of L. Farrakhan and J. Wright are in the same neighbourhood.

    They are salesmen of Neuveau Faux Change– the kind that makes a ka-ching noise in their own pockets! They never have to worry about payment of rent or a stay in the hospital. They’ve covered on that score. Hmm, but maybe they haven’t quite covered their tracks.

    I realize citing articles from Chicago’s 2 corporate newspapers, the Sun-Times and Tribune, is a bit like comparing the Democlicans and Republicrats. It’s wise to stay wary of both. At least the Sun-Times does have Tim Novak, and esp. Lynn Sweet, on whom the Obama campaign is probably very sour. I’m grateful to Susan for quoting the Kass commentary in the Chicago Tribune, where Kass still is an exception. The Tribune, with all its national media power, endorsed Obama for the U.S. Senate and have done so again, IIRC, for his presidential bid.

    Translucent Image
    Free animated web stickers, banners, buttons
    on Impeachment, Peace, Transparent Elections

  189. Translucent Image says:

    Pippa pleaded :
    Just caught smiling photo of BO under headline “Obama wins democratic nom”. And for us Brits that’s a bit quick. I needs me some proof!

    Pippa, hang on tight while the corporate talking heads are spinning ’round. They’ll probably do a complete 360 degree turn anyway in a few months, but in the meantime, they’re doing a number on the Truth.

    The proof is not in those pudding-heads but at the Democratic Natl. Convention, where all delegates and so-called superdelegates will be asked to deliver on the pledges they made months earlier. The pledge is a promise, not a legal obligation; that goes double for the superderelicts, who already are being derelict in their duty to uphold the will of the people.

    Former candidates, namely John Edwards and Chris Dodd IIRC, likewise have promised their handful of primary delegates to B.O., but the truth is that those particular delegates are not mere property for Edwards, Dodd and B.O. to trade like baseball cards. In their usual high-handed fashion, they behave as though they have the delegates in their pockets. Maybe that’s true re. financial kickbacks and political machinations, e.g. the Obama campaign handing out thousands of dollars to superderelict Claire McCaskill and other “endorsers” who btw weren’t satisfied with having their 1}personal votes as citizens, their 2}superdelegate votes, and their 3}normal influence in the government and media…

    …but in pure legal terms, and yes, even in terms of the DNC and DLC so-called rules, the delegates don’t strictly belong to anyone until they declare themselves at the Convention.

    Oh, and don’t forget Pippa, about the electoral college in the U.S., presenting yet another set of delegates!

    Add ‘em up: you’ll have to keep track of delegates, superdelegates, and electoral college delegates. Of course, maybe the relevance of the math hinges on whether the election is fair and honest. But do you, sitting from your position in the U.K., think the Diebold voting machines are programmed properly to do the math, or to merely ‘do a number’ on the whole process?

    Just a thought to ponder….

  190. the_eleven says:

    Don’t mistake me for a pro-Obama troll…I’m not, being equally repulsed by both of the pro-corporate candidates that are being presented to me as some kind of choice.

    The important thing that I think almost all of the folk belonging to your faction are missing is this: the media you complain about? It’s all owned by FOUR COMPANIES. THEY are the ones we should be worried about. THEY are the ones who are dismissive of everyone who isn’t part of their clique, and they don’t give a damn what my or your race or gender is, they only give a damn about what club we belong to, and it isn’t theirs. It’s a waste of time to get particularly worked up about what they’re saying; the fact that they have so much power that what they want us to hear is ALL we hear that’s the threat. Both sides make this mistake; by fighting each other, we ignore the true threat to our country and our livelihoods.

    Kill your TV. It’ll be amazing how many of these worries will become like a thing of the past to you at that point.

  191. Beth C says:

    This lady has a point.
    Obama’s 143 Days of Senate Experience
    Posted by Cheri Jacobus a blogger at “The Loft”
    May 5, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much.
    From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That’s how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.
    After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
    143 days — I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.
    In contrast, John McCain’s 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.

    Think about IT!!!

  192. Violet says:

    Beth, I’m no fan of McCain. (Nor Reagan, for that matter, who was one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had.)

    the_eleven, I did turn off my TV, years ago. And just because the media is sexist doesn’t mean Obama is some innocent lamb who’s been floating above it all. He has exploited the media’s anti-Clinton misogyny, fed it, stoked it. Behind the scenes throughout his campaign his people have been feeding the media every smear against Hillary they could come up with.

  193. Susan Mayhew says:

    Violet – thanks again. And the beat goes on.
    The Huffington Post has an article on a news model who referred to Spike Lee as ‘uppity’- this was MSNBC – who brought us Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman – the misogynist club
    Oh, no the MSNBC spokes-model said ‘uppity’ OMG!!!
    Horrors – wait until Keith Doberman gets his fangs into that story! But it was ok for KO to call Hillary ‘David Duke’ and her campaign the ‘KKK’ and Chris Matthews demean her nightly.

    Spike Lee is from Atlanta – so he may have heard racial insults in his 50 years and sadly, worse than these.

    I grew up in New York City and had friends of every color and background. Perhaps the psychosis of seeing racism under every word or action is based on the experience of the spokes-models – who, as Bill Maher quipped need to ‘have their first black friend’.

    The media still continues the melodrama – while I get more and more convinced that Obama is not only inexperienced, but corrupt.

    The media doesn’t have a woman to beat up now – and anyone who remembers how Harold Ford, handsome, pro-life Democrat got defeated is in for a mean dose of déjà vu.

  194. Susan Mayhew says:

    Tony Smith – you’ve come through for me again.The Roe threat against those of us who vow to withhold our votes from Obama is merely that – as you so intelligently explain.
    I’ve searched for Obama’s position points on Choice and find none that aren’t couched in his typical ‘we like this, we like that’ rhetoric.Never a strong stand.
    As a New Yorker I cried after Henry Hyde – nearly 30 years ago took away the rights of poor women to take control of their lives.
    This blog and this primary has given me more clarity on many subjects – but especially this topic, because misogyny traps women and traps poor women most completely. The number one cause of death among pregnant women is homicide – and Obama’s manipulation of white guilt has put us further in danger.
    The scariest thing about Obama is that he’s an opportunist and corrupt politician and above all, a sexist – like none we’ve seen in recent years.
    Thanks again Tony!

  195. American Woman says:

    We are trying to get a “Thank you card campaign” started. We want to flood Senator Clinton’s DC office with thank you cards. On the front of the envelope we are writing “WE ARE ONE OF 18 MILLION” and we are asking her to take it to Denver. We want to reach as many supporters as possible so it can be effective.


    WASHINGTON DC 20510-3202

  196. Susan Mayhew says:

    American Woman – should we put our request inside the card to take it to Denver? I’ll do that this weekend (I’m working at the convention, so if I can help further, let me know)

  197. American Woman says:


    It is post at Taylor Marsh…write One in a Million on the outside of the envelope…and a note to take it to Denver…

    I got it from taylormarsh’s website and it also posted on Hillaryclinton.com

    If anyone needs any inspiration to tell Hillary to take this to Denver…watch this video…

    Numbers Don’t Lie…


  198. the_eleven says:

    violet: I assume that all politicians are willing to stoop to unethical and unpleasant depths in order to succeed, and am seldom disappointed. I suppose you could call both Hillary and Obama honest from the “stays bought” angle, but neither of them have or deserve much more credit than that, at least if you’ve been paying attention and drawing information from non-Time Warner/News Corporation/GE/etc sources. They have BOTH smeared each other behind the scenes at great length. The kind of blame you’re trying to lay on Obama, applied equally, means that NONE of the major candidates deserve your vote.

    It should be fairly obvious at this point that I think we as a people have no good options. Blaming people who have been sold a bill of goods and bought into the system for supporting someone else’s tool over your tool is a waste of time that could be better spent thinking about how to solve the problem of the corporate state that’s about to destroy our liberties and economy no matter which of the three tools running in this election make it.

  199. Violet says:

    They have BOTH smeared each other behind the scenes at great length.

    No, I’m sorry. That’s as true as saying that both Bush and Gore ran equally dishonest campaigns 2000. It’s simply false.

    Obama ran a mudfest. And all the evidence that Hillary threw “the kitchen sink” at him comes from — guess who — the Obama campaign. That was just part of his package of smears against her, which he copied wholesale from the Republicans and then expanded. That’s one reason I’ll never vote for him. A Democrat who exploited 15 years of wingnuts smears against Hillary? No fucking way.

  200. Susan Mayhew says:

    Who the Hell let ‘Matthew’ into this site? Here’s his directive for us ‘Clintonistas’:

    “But now, many of these newcomers to the civic duties they should have been attending all along are reacting to Clinton’s loss much the same way small children playing a sport for the first time do when they lose. They insist they won…and when no agreement is forthcoming, they sulk, pout, and threaten to quit the game entirely. This is natural, but hopefully many of these first timers will stick around and mature a little. If they do stay in the process, they should eventually realize that this is just one campaign. One race, among many. Those of us who have been politically active for a while had to learn the same lesson these newbies are learning now. You don’t win every race. You keep going and you keep working for the issues you care about.

    Well, you could also follow the course of some of these immature Clintonistas and adopt a policy of scorched earth revenge…but hopefully most of the people who supported Clinton are wiser than that. We believe they are.”

    OH Matthew …’many of these newcomers to the civic duties they should have been attending all along’ – punk – I’ve been involved in politics for 20 years … not a lot of practice with the written word, eh Matthew?

    His site is pitiful with sheep munching sounds – oh, Matthew, clever Matthew – and full of hateful rhetoric. He even quotes Keith Doberman.
    Cut this jerk off – he’s a BO troll.

  201. Susan Mayhew says:

    Let’s keep an eye out for the BO trolls .. they are jealous enough to want to join our club!

  202. Violet says:

    Whoops! Sorry about that! I’ve deleted Matthew. Thank you very much, Susan.

  203. the_eleven says:

    violet: I’m a little surprised that you are comfortable making that claim. Rather than start an argument over sources reporting deeds neither of us have firsthand access to, I’ll share a personal anecdote with you that, for me, negates the arguments I have heard about Hillary running a “clean” campaign.

    I am a North Carolina resident; as you know, we recently voted in a primary that actually mattered to some extent, which is unusual for us. On the afternoon of April 30, I received a phone call from Hart Research, soliciting me to participate in a research study about the election. I almost always participate in such research; I am fascinated by the business of polling, and in addition to majoring in sociology in college I have several years of experience administering a diverse range of such surveys over the telephone, and (not to blow my own horn) have developed a fine eye for identifying bull in the field.

    After the basic introductory questions (which, stunningly, neglected to ask if I worked in the field, but did ask if I worked or was associated with those working in the media), the format of the poll was such:

    [Statement that emphasizes either a positive for Clinton or a negative for Obama]

    Q: Now which candidate would you be more likely to vote for?

    A: [Clinton, Obama, No Change]

    Given my studies in research methods, I can only conclude that this poll was financed by the Clinton campaign, and served two functions, as a push poll and as a test to see the best route of attack. Push polls are dirty pool, end of story.

    There’s no such thing as a successful political campaign constructed by innocents. It cheapens you and your message of support for Clinton to claim that your political candidate is somehow above the fray; if she was she would never have made it this far.

    Concentrating on the underhanded tools the candidates use misses the real problem with this election cycle anyway, which is that we’re faced with a President who will either speed the country towards economic collapse and subsequent fascism (McCain, natch), or one who will lead us there at a leisurely jog (both Clinton and Obama). Either way we’re all in for it.

  204. ginmar says:

    So. We have to take your word for it and dismiss all that Obama’s done because you assure us you’re right and argue from authority. I totally trust you!

  205. Violet says:

    Push polling? Push polling? That’s your idea of Clinton’s dirty politics?

    Meanwhile we’ve got the Obama camp smearing Hillary as a would-be assassin, a monster, a racist; we’ve got doctored videos; we’ve got bullies physically harassing people at the caucuses; we’ve got voter suppression — geez.

    Obama has run a dirty, smear-based campaign. And I will never vote for him.

  206. Susan Mayhew says:

    ten_eleven… Who gives a shit what you have to say? You are going to lecture the group on how we should lead our lives – and lecture in this pop-culture parlance!

    ‘It cheapens you and your message of support for Clinton to claim that your political candidate is somehow above the fray;’
    Who said Clinton was ‘above the fray’ – gotta love the verbiage – trying to seem literate, eh.

    You should get to know your con man – read ‘Bound Man’ and find out what McCain will be putting in his ads – read about Barack’s corrupt politics in Chicago, Michelles ties to the Daley machine.
    Spend less time instructing your betters and find out how your guy is going down in flames of this own making.

    You know nothing – you have no authority – did your ‘research’ ever pass by an English course?

    Clearly an Obamaniac who has found this site to in terror – ten_eleven will lecture us and show us the way.

  207. Beth C says:

    There are so many anti-Obama groups at Yahoo, and blog sites that the Obamaniacs will be dizzy trying to spew their vitriol in so many directions. They should be afraid, very afraid, especially when the Repubs let the dogs out.

  208. Susan Mayhew says:

    Beth C – you are SO right – and I heard (though it was from nutty Buchanan – he is generally right) that if 25% of the Hillary supporters vote for McCain – he will win.
    We need to pressure McCain on the issues we care about most (remembering that your congress people are the important voices on most issues).
    The Obamaniacs – ARE scared – even the Hillary bashing ‘Daily Kos’ is trying to ‘make nice’ – the responses there from our side are pretty harsh – as they should be. DK was one of the most virulent sites on the net, and for me, it’s too little, too late.

  209. American Woman says:


    I agree…Too LITTLE, Too LATE, I have been going around to all the new Pro Hillary Sites and it does seem like a movement…PUMA is a new 527, that is going to be meeing with John McCain..about issues…PUMA…”Party Unity My *ss”

  210. Susan Mayhew says:

    American Woman – great input.I’m going to check out PUMA this morning.
    The media is now re-writing history. ‘This Week’ guests trivialized the impact of the sexism – I guess if they repeat a lie often enough, we stupid Clinton supporters will take the bait. Interesting that our position is dismissed so soon after woman-hating gave Barack the nod.
    We need to make our voices heard – or wind up with a guy who, increasingly, looks like another George Bush.

  211. American Woman says:


    Here is the link…most of the Hillary.com supporters have gone to this site..

    Eighteen Million is a LOUD VOICE..If We Stand United


  212. Marle says:

    Hi. I’m been an Obama supporter for most of the primary season, and I never really understood why Clinton supporters wouldn’t vote for Obama. And now I’ve read your post and all the comments, and I just have to say thank you.

    I never knew he thought about voting for Roberts. And I’m discusted that the best reason he could give for it is that he wouldn’t want to oppose him on “ideological grounds”. Because women’s health and choices are “ideological”. Because being able to actually make a case about pay discrimination is “ideological”. He’s got a 100% approval rating from NARAL and he says he’s for women’s rights, but does he really care? Or is it just that looking pro-choice seems like a good political strategy?

    You know what I hate the most through? That McCain is worse. I know that McCain will appoint anti-choice Justices, and I know my state will ban abortion as soon as that happens. And McSame doesn’t care about Universal Health Care, or getting out of Iraq, or gay rights, or anything else that I find important. So whatever I find out about Obama, I’ve got that floating over my head. So Obama blathers again that marriage should be between a man and a woman but civil unions for gays are ok, and all I get to do is remember that McSame doesn’t even support that. I fucking hate the system. I wish McKinney could win.

  213. donna darko says:

    You don’t need to lecture anyone on Democrats vs. Republicans. Everyone knows. Unfortunately, they act the same now.

  214. Susan Mayhew says:

    Obama is just a corrupt Chicago pol. He is NOT pro-choice You are misinformed, he did NOT get 100% approval from NARAL (read the details, not just the headlines).

    Only the national chapter endorsed him – countless state orgs did not.The 150k protest emails national NARAL received after the national org endorsed him represents how the states reacted and reacted negatively and strongly. Thousands (including me) quit NARAL in protest. Try to find a definitive statement on choice from this obscene misogynist – you won’t find any.
    It’s easy to be a Obama supporter if you take the superficial message of ‘Hope’ ‘Change’ at face value (the only value they have) and if you overlook the content of his character – his message of ‘Change’ is polit-speak – the opposite of what he brings to the table – a background like Boss Tweed – nothing ‘Change’ there. Obama is a corrupt politician who’s wife worked for the Daley gange – which is like saying she worked for the Sopranos.
    Read up on your hero – McCain actually ISN’T worse. Read ‘Bound Man’ – to learn what really drives Obama – this con man – it is opportunism and manipulation of white guilt – not any higher motives. Find out the real associations and motives of this faker.
    If 25% of Clinton supporters vote for McCain, he will win. 25% is less than the projection from PUMA – we all need to send a message that a corrupt pol isn’t acceptable just because he’s black and white liberals are guilty and because the media bias continually smeared Clinton.

    He didn’t even win the popular vote! He has no solid position on anything. I’m for wiping the Obamaniacs off every blog. Now the slime are trying to make us ‘unite’? – sure – we’ll forget the venom – now that they are putting away their Hillary ‘nut crackers’? We’ll join our attackers, we’ll admit we’re ‘sluts’, we’ll ‘iron their shirts’. Join them? – no, NEVER.

  215. Beth C says:

    I had to agree with McCain on many things he said to small business owners today. To pay for all the programs that Obama says we’ll have will ultimately mean raising taxes on more than those making more than $250,000.00. I don’t want the estate tax, capital gains tax, Social Security bite, and alternative minimum tax, to increase or be kept as Obama proposes. The only way Obama can deliver all these programs is to increase these taxes, or borrow more bucks from China. I don’t see a turnaround in the economy with Obama’s ideas so far and he has yet to lay out his definative plan.

  216. Susan Mayhew says:

    Beth C – I’m with you – all the scare tactics about McCain are just meant to bring us back into the BO fold.
    Barack actually has few plans for the economy – his rhetoric is more about Reagan-like ‘morning in America’ crap than real manageable plans.
    Taxes – right – and the real drain on our economy is the mess that Bush has created in Iraq .. I don’t see BO getting a handle on withdrawing troops since he has already flip-flopped on ‘talking to our enemies’ to ‘talking with provisions’…. Let’s try to wade through the bs to figure out what the guy is really saying.
    McCain has said that America is ‘just getting to know Obama’… all too true.

  217. Judy Best says:

    Only Senator Clinton at this time in history had the chance to turn the tide within the system for women. But Hillary’s sexist media treatment as the hated cu$# candidate proves that women will never win within the global patriarchal system. Our solutions must be to create a better world of our own making beginning at the grassroots in the community where each of us lives, building concentric compassion globally with our energy pulled away from the system of men, wherever we can, day by day.

    Although I supported her, Senator Clinton does not own my vote, and I’ll do with it as I please. It’s rather fascist for anybody to suggest that Democrat “party unity” is more important than voting my conscience. Otherwise, the women who fought so hard to achieve the vote for women did nothing but make us tools of the existing system.

    You may fairly assume that I am not racist and that racism does not affect my political choices, because I worked for the last gubernatorial campaign of Bill Richardson (who is bi-racial, as is [N]Obama), and because I am myself bi-racial.

    You may not fairly assume, however, that Barak and Michelle [N]Obama hold no racial animus against “whitey” (or “why did he”) because the credible evidence is that they do. Would you subject your own children to the racially motivated hate-mongering of Rev. Wright, Sunday after Sunday? Only when it became politically expedient to disavow Rev. Wright did [N]Obama do so. And that’s just one example of the hypocrisy of Mr. and Mrs. [N]Obama. She seems the brighter of the two, yet he’s the media-made man who waxes eloquent only when he has a teleprompter to read, and not when asked for anything that would resemble an off-the-cuff honest opinion.

    [N]Obama as a candidate is dangerously inexperienced, all rhetorical spin and no qualifications for the presidency. His lack of presidential qualification is why I will never vote for him, along with the global misogyny reflected in the coverage of Hillary’s campaign.

    I’d hope other women who supported Hillary would be people, not sheep, and disregard Hillary’s current “make nice” with [N]Obama. That public display of affection may be more about getting help to retire her personal multi-million campaign-spending debt than anything else. My family, my community and my country deserve my loyalty, not the DNC. The “group think” of “party” loyalty fits an Orwellian fiction and belonged to the reality of a defunct USSR, not the USA.

    In my decades-long experience of progressive and Democrat activism, whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge, the supposed rights of women in this country are largely illusory, on paper with no cost-effective enforcement for the majority of womankind. The DNC misleads women about this political reality. The DNC whips up false hope that can only lead us down the wrong path if the proposed leader is [N]Obama

    For example, “choice” in the realm of abortion over the past two decades has become largely a matter of each state’s legislation and enforcement, such that the presidential “federal” position is virtually irrelevant. Moreover, the modern schooling of allopathic physicians has backed off abortion training. Outside the abortion-friendly states, doctors in general have already quit being abortion-service providers.

    The modern battleground for abortion “choice” with doctors who are willing to perform abortions would necessarily be state by state, at the grassroots level, because Roe v. Wade was a pyrrhic victory. Since Roe v. Wade, incrementally, year by year, Republican president or Democrat, the federal system’s gatekeepers have basically closed their gates to women’s authentic choice.

    In the realm of whether to bear children or not, women’s choice has never really mattered to the ruling patriarchy. Liberal men wanted abortion at male demand, and conservative men wanted male fetus protection, the woman be damned — and they still do. This is why Roe v. Wade was always destined to be a pyrrhic victory for women, as is every seeming victory when men of any skin color are in charge.

    The DNC does not tell women the truth about political reality. The DNC cares about its own existence, not the lives of women. Womankind in America is being fed a hypocritical theory by DNC party line about what a national president, as contrasted with state legislatures, can and cannot do in the area of abortion and women’s rights generally.

    Hypocrisy about illusory “women’s rights” based on the DNC party line is a poor basis on which to choose a president. [N]obama has no significant track record of implementing women’s rights, because he has no federal track record to speak of, period. John McCain, on the other hand, sponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act, which daily benefits millions of disabled women and men.

    When did the facts stop counting in American press coverage? Oh, yeah, it was when the global system started allowing for corporate takeover and media conglomerates. Now reporters must “self-censor” if they want to keep their jobs, even where the policy of misogyny is not overtly stated. The images of ads are enough. Men running major media hate women of my type, and Hillary’s type, and mold minds daily with their message of hatred against any woman not in their fabricated image. What type are you?

  218. Beth C says:

    Judy you hit the nail on the head, and I haven’t seen any pro women credentials Obama has shown. Of course now women are wonderful as long as they vote for him, and his wife strikes me as “one who doesn’t play well with others”. The states will continue to dilute Roe v Wade until rich women will be flying out of the country again, and poor women will be getting backstreet illegal abortions.

  219. Susan Mayhew says:

    Amen, Beth – and the trend to throw poor women under the bus started decades ago when Henry Hyde succeeded in limiting abortion rights to those who didn’t need federal money.

    The Roe argument is a red herring – it’s states that make those rules and lets remember that it was Democrats who allowed Roberts and Alito (the more dangerous of the two) to get jobs for life.
    The Obamaniacs are still beating that drum – since so few of them have any knowledge of how the government works.

    Beth C – again I agree about Michelle. She’s an angry person – her thesis underscores that and contrary to (what I believe is a racist need to mythologize the Obamas) the claim that she was struggling in poverty is a fiction – she was raised middle class with a chip on her shoulder.

    Obama worked for her when he was first hired at their law firm and it’s clear that she’s been the boss ever since.

  220. BryceM says:

    “The way to continue our fight now – to accomplish the goals for which we stand – is to take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States.” — H.Clinton statement on her website.

    “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.” –J.McCain, speaking to his wife.

    Y’all might not like Obama, but I still can’t figure out where you get your idea that that McCain is a GOOD choice.

    It’s a pity you aren’t actually listening to the request of the person you claim to want in office.

  221. Violet says:

    It’s a pity you’re not bothering to read the post on which you’re commenting. But I’m sure it feels better to just sail in and lecture the stupid women on what you think they’re saying.

  222. Beth C says:

    Hey Bryce: Have another glass of Obama kool-aid and get back to the cult to worship the messiah instead of trolling here. Tell your leader it’s not nice to hijack delegates with the help of the DNC. You and the other mean spirited followers who have booed Hillary at Obama rallies are now afraid that we can turn him down and will!

  223. Susan Mayhew says:

    Thanks Violet and Beth C – Bryce needs to go back under the bridge with the other trolls. The one overriding characteristic of the Obama mob is that they hate and childishly mock because they still can’t explain why Barack’s the One. The most telling indicator of Obama’s lack of character is the mindless hatred he’s inspired in his followers. They blather like drunk teenagers. They ape their savior who is so shamelessly opportunistic that his decisions boggle the mind.

    His mean-spiritedness borders on adolescent rage – the Edwards endorsement on the night of Hillary’s overwhelming victory which took the limelight from her fabulous win; hiring her ex-campaign manager as his VP’s assistant (ensuring that Hillary will not be VP); reversing on public financing yesterday. Barack’s lack of substance is continually revealed (as it was in Chicago) but the beat goes on.

    McCain is vulgar (wow, another sexist) but Obama stayed in a church whose pastor ranted racist hate speech for 20 years – Barack is like the Wizard of Oz – just ignore the man behind the curtain – focus on the projection instead. The latest bumper sticker to ‘convince’ us to vote for this opportunist with no qualifications is racist and typically adolescent, it says: ‘Anyone but the WHITE guy’ – this on SUVs in my white town.

    Barack’s wife is being remade before our eyes – no Black Nation rhetoric on the ‘View’ (you have to read her thesis for that) – every criticism of the pair is mocked and the guilty white press cowers. Michele is even more dangerous than Barack since she clearly is still his boss.

    Barack is a corrupt liar – a new Dubya and who knows when Barack will bomb Pakistan – as he promised he would.

  224. Beth C says:

    Susan: He is definitely the Manchurian Candidate of 2008, and Michelle is his (Angela Lansbury) mother.

  225. Susan Mayhew says:

    Beth – you’re great – that’s it exactly! And his Obamabots are the same… back to Bryce…

    “Y’all might not like Obama, but I still can’t figure out where you get your idea that that McCain is a GOOD choice.

    It’s a pity you aren’t actually listening to the request of the person you claim to want in office.”

    How could Bryce ‘figure out’ why we aren’t sheep like the ‘bots? That the reason we stood by Hillary is that she was the most qualified and she respected our intelligence – not lowering herself to empty rhetoric and teenage pandering (shades of Dubya).

    We are the same people who worked and voted for her. Now we are choosing to make our own stand against the monster you forced on us – something none of you ‘bots can comprehend!

    Dear little Bryce – another confused Obamabot with no women to demean. And STILL no argument FOR his savior… What I can’t ‘figure out’ is what you people thought you were getting! I never heard an argument pro-Barack that had any weight.

  226. Susan Mayhew says:

    The con man continues to show his true face. Voted FOR the FISA bill.. complimented the Supreme Court’s decision on Washington gun law.
    The guy is just a corrupt politician .. with a better marketing team.

  227. Beth C says:

    This shallow candidate now thinks he can win the South. What is he smoking? His 50 state plan is folly. A few more flip flops and we can count on him to be another Kerry going down. NOBAMA and Hillary in 2012.