A really good speech, I liked it a lot and am now more hopeful about the upcoming general election.

Well after watching Ezra..and every other conventional wisdom blogger post on a daily basis some form of:

"Hillary is an A-hole for not supporting Barak"

It's clear that Hillary must be an A-hole...after all how could those bloggers who supported the war - Josh, Kevin, Andrew, Matt...et al be wrong about anything? Heck they were at least as confident about the war as they are about Obama, why worry?

So after spending at least year, [in the case of Josh multiple years] trashing Hillary why would her endorsement of Barak matter? Did Ezra, Josh, Kevin, Andrew, Matt and Jon suddenly reverse themselves?

I tell you it's a enough to give you whiplash.

American pundits are truly a ridiculous spectacle.

If you treat the good with the bad, how can you tell the difference S Brennan? Seriously, your posts are increasely bizzare. So, because one says she did a good thing, and pointed out the good things, that means they don't realize she's done some bad things? Is that your point. I am all for calling Ezra and other talking heads out on their shit when it's appropriate criticism. That's not what you are doing.

Correct, akaison. As I watched, impressed, I knew that I also resented the fact that this hype, and her assurances, should have largely been unnecessary. Had she and her campaign conducted themselves with the dignity we all felt she was capable of (if not always prone to) all along, the concession speech might have been delivered by her opponent instead.

Whatever. She did what she needed to and said what Democrats needed to hear from her now, which is all that matters at this point. I'd prefer we be able to re-write the past, but c'est la effing vie.

Lmao, first the Clinton supporters complain that nobody respects them. Now they complain when we're diplomatic.

I get the feeling they just want to whine.

s. Brennan, maybe you should go to Correntwire where Bringiton and Lambert are declaring that this is just a campaign tactic, and Hillary expects that Obama will fail so she can ride in to save the party. It seems to me that many Clinton supporters see more nefarious plots to ascribe to HRC than we detractors could ever conjure up.

Tolllite, you've laughed your ass off so much lately, it's a wonder you can speak.

Clinton speaks of unity and you go the other way. Surely, you're a repub troll.

I listened acutely, and I couldn't hear a hint of insincerity, and I did hear a resolute call to support Barak - and Hillary's pledge to do everything she could do to win in Nov. And she tried very hard to bring her loyalists along. Yes, she hurt Barak and the party a bit by some of her statements, but the damage is not likely to be lasting, and if she carries forward her pledge today through November, then she's welcome back into my good graces.

It had to be very hard for her (and Bill) to make that speech, but she did it and she did it well.

Now, let's kick ass to win in the general election - united we stand, divided we fall.

I didn't hear any insincerity either, but whakcjobs like Bringiton, TexasDarlin, and Lambert did.

Really, Hillary doesn't have much choice. But this does go a long way towards proving that she isn't Joe Lieberman. When push came to shove, she fell in line and did the right thing. She may not have had much of a choice, but she did have a choice and I'm sure Ickes was pushing for a convention fight. Clinton has proven herself to be a better loser than Kennedy was, and that will be remembered.

I'm not going to argue with dead enders on any of these threads anymore. I'll still ridicule them, but engaging with them is no longer required. These people are trolls, they deserve to be turned into jesters.

The speech was an absolute dog turd from beginning to end. All of a sudden she is the feminist candidate. She had not so cast herself before. It was nothing but self congratulation from beginning to end, and she was pleased to call her successes "remarkable." People who vote for you are not in the kind of feudal relation she implies, where their fate is linked to yours, and you control whom they fight against, for god's sake

Three post by Obama supporters on my post relating to bloggers using daily personal attacks against Clinton and yes three [at the time I write this] personal attacks by Barak supporters against my person. The party won't unify until Barak supporters stop "helping" their candidate and apologize for past personal attacks on Clinton.

And soulite I've corrected you dozens of times...but once again [with a Gore sigh]...I dislike both Hillary and Barak for exactly the same reasons and as akaison knows full well, I have been highly critical of HILLARY'S AND BARAK'S right-wing stances and verbiage.

We could of gotten a reform candidate through this year...instead we are getting a choice of folks who are clever enough to vote against Alito but won't support a filibuster which is how he would up on the court.

The Democrats will win in November, big money is backing Obama who outspent Clinton in many states by multiple margins and as it stands, Barak has 300 million to McCain's 85 million with an anticipated margin of 1/2 Billion to 120 million repectively. Barak has given the money men [and in one case I know of....woman] private assurances that no needed reforms will happen without their say so [which translates into NO REAL REFORM], but of course Barak's faithful followers would tell you he has managed to sucker a lot of rich folks. I have a hard time believing the latter and he has already been caught doing the former.

Hillary and Barak's cowardice in the Senate on; the Iraq war, abject fealty to Israel [I mean...c'mon, can't you support Israel without being Lukid's, or whatever their calling themselves doormat?], Supreme court nominees, financial oversight, Presidential crimes...i could go on, but why bother the blogging community has it's collective blinders on...where's Billmon?

If we don't reform, the US will go into an inescapable decline and as the Roman's found out, you can fall awful far when you are number one and nations often drag their friends down with them.

"I'm not going to argue with dead enders on any of these threads anymore."

You were arguing? So far, I've seen only hissy fits.

S Brennan: Campaigns are a zero-sum game. You spend all your time criticizing Obama, and only say anything about bad Clinton when called on out on your support of her. That makes you a Clinton supporter, and a particularly dishonest one. You may think you're too cool to pick a side, but reality is what it is.

I doubt Obama is going to be the best politician ever (despite Akaison's bizarre belief that I worship him as my man-god of America), but that doesn't change the fact that I support him by default and hope to hell that he'll prove my misgivings wrong. Stand by your choice and stop trying to weasel out of it when its convenient for you.

Wow, this from a jack-ass who posts one-line responses that include such gems as 'Never gonna happen' (to OBama's nomination prospect) and pointing out various typos (which reminds me, tollite?)

When you learn how to write an entire paragraph, get back to me.

It was a perfect speech. It wasn't stingy or resentful, yet it didn't seemed forced either. I like that she put the race in its historic context and saw the significance of her own and Obama's role in the bigger picture. The speech showed why this was such a close race. And why democrats need and deserve to come out of this campaign strengthened, not weakened.

let the historians deal with the details...
the campaign for the democratic nomination has ended.

much more work to be done.
hands on the plowshare
and move forward!

The thing I forgot to say is that I think she increased her chances of getting the VP nom. Although I am wondering how America would view a black President and woman VP, I still think she's a good VP candidate when she's not trying to take over as President. That last part of my misgivings about her in teh role, but I think she has a lot to add.

Re Progressive. I agree with teh argument that we need progressive, but the way we get it is to be at hte table rather than whine that we didn't win with Edwards, whom I supported or some other more progressive choice. this is why I am hoping Edwards if they offer it will take the AG role.

As for S Brennan- he's not a Clinton supporter. I just think he's an absolutist.

Finally, much of Obama's money is coming from small donors. Is there some coroporate- yes. But the idea that they are the bulk is disingenious if you look at the numbers. He could be better on these issues, and I want public finance. Indeed, I hope thats one thing they get into, but that doesn't mean you get to misconscrue the source of his campaign funds S Brennan.

Hillary's support was bought. I wonder whhe at deal they made the other night when they met at Feinstein's house....retirement of debt...veep position...cabinet appointment....nomination to SCOTUS?
Whatever the price is Hillary didn't come cheap.

akaison,

I don't think Edwards will get AG because Barak's big supporters will construe that as betrayal of private assurances.

Case on point, in these parts it is pretty widely known that Bill's MS gang supported Bush over Gore because Gore would not give them assurance that the Justice department enforcement of the anti-trust laws against MS would cease under a Gore administration. Now with that completely resolved the MS gang is supporting Obama...Edwards as AG would throw a monkey wrench into that tacit agreement, Edwards is not easily controlled and corporate America would not allow a repeat of an independent AG, as happened under Bill Clinton.

I should add:

Before the Obama chorus sings their favorite song, just because somebody uses facts that don't conform to your world view, does not mean they are a Clinton supporter.

As one who has at times been harshly critical of Senator Clinton (for reasons wholly unrelated to her gender), I am most pleased to have her on board for a Democratic victory. Let's hope that Senator Obama's campaign and an Obama administration each make good use of this remarkable woman's considerable talents.

S Brennan: Like I said, this is a zero sum game. You ONLY ever criticize Obama. By default, you're supporting Clinton. This is basic poli-sci. If you abstain, you side with the winner. If you criticize only one side, you're supporting the other. You can argue that you think Obama is worse, but then you've still made a choice. Thats how it works. I really don't give a fuck if you support clinton or not, but stand by the realities of your choice and stop trying to have it both ways.

I've seen countless posts about the evils of Obama from you. The only time you even state that you disagree with Clinton is when you're called out on your anti-Obama slant. If you constantly talked against both, that would be one thing. You don't. You only criticize one with any specificity or depth, and completely ignore the other. Thats making a choice no matter how much you may wish to pretend otherwise.

Your conspiracy theories don't really count as facts. 'widely known' is nothing but a collection of weasel-words. I know your bizarre fantasies of Obama crushing all opposition under the fascist boot of unity are all you really care about at this point, but get real. Obama may not be a saint, but if corporate types controlled such decisions, The SD's would have nominated Clinton.

There are certainly circumstances under whish I wouldn't have supported Clinton even before the campaign began. I understand not supporting the nominee. I do not, however, understand denying the reality of politics. You are a Clinton supporter by default. If you continue opposing him, you'll be a McCain supporter by default. Thats how it works. I understand making that choice, but I don't understand denying it to yourself.

If Clinton had won by overturning the will of the pledged delegates, or she won and the R nominee was Huckabee or Romney, you wouldn't see me here calling myself a Democrat and pretending that I wasn't one of their supporters.

"obama may not be a saint"

i dont know if he is a saint or not,
but i think he is a bodhisattvha.
he is very highly anointed.

we are blessed to have him.

S Brennan: You seem largely incoherent and only semi-literate, but you might gain a tiny bit of credibility if you could learn to spell Obama's effing first name.

If Hillary wants to work her heart out helping to elect Barack Obama, then I know a good place she can start: with her own supporters. How many of them have threatened to stay home or vote for McCain?

cello

i am hoping for the best.
things may come together
in an extraordinary way.
at least,
we can hope for that.

life is full of surprises.

Well, apparently, this is not what unity sounds like, after all.

I only got through the first 10 minutes before the You Tube froze up, but I was pretty impressed, as I have been, with Clinton's improvement as a speaker, as well as the fulsomeness of her endorsement of Obama. I think the speech will go a long way towards healing the divisions...

...but I think assuming that we can simply glide past the divides in the electorate form the primary season are a little wishful. There's a lot of bad feeling, and some issues - the "isms" we've all brought up repeatedly, the class issues, the poor elements of the primary process - that can't be overlooked forever. Or can be... but not if we plan to try and bring people together. Myself I have the intention of doing as Clinton asks, as much as I can. It seems like I owe her that. But more than that, I'd rather focus on the things that have left such fissures, and figure out how we can move forward on dealing with them.

Weboy you just aren't a significant part of the population, which is the only relevant point in my mind in terms of campaigning.

Count me as an Obama supporter who was pleasantly surprised by Clinton's speech. So what if it was mostly about herself her campaign? That's what her audience cares about most, what they came to hear. She has plenty of time to make speeches more oriented towards Obama.

I don't think she should be veep, though. It muddies Obama's message and, let's face it, she's in a more powerful office as it is. If she wants to attend funerals abroad, she can still do it as a senator from New York.

At least Hillary got the Vice President slot during her private meeting with Barack at the Feinsteins house.

It will be announced in a few weeks after Barack does his so-called 'search' for a running mate. baracks not stupid, he knows he neds Hillarys' supporters to win and dumping her will make them walk.

Its pretty clear from those in the know in DC that she's a lock for VP, its just a matter of waiting to build the suspense.

What unity sounds like??

More like what being bought off sounds like.....

Hillary gave a wonderful and original speech, unlike her con man of an opponent.

I really liked Obamas speech on winning the nomination...BUT I LIKED IT EVEN MORE WHEN MARIO CUOMO GAVE IT IN 1984.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYa8k09V7lI

Does he think we are all stupid?

But I guess since he was only a kid back then, can you blame him for not knowing what Axelrod wrote was stolen.

And I love the excuse that he can be buds with William Ayers because he attacked the Pentagon 40 years ago. So I guess 30 years from now, our candidate can hang with Osama Bin Laden and say "Hey I was just a kid when he bombed the WTC".

So I guess Obama would have no problems with a candidate who spent the last 10 years being friends with Sirhan Sirhan or James Earl Ray, after all, those associations say nothing about the candidate...right?

Perhaps Barack could spend soem time meeting with John Murtagh...after all, John was only 9 back when Ayers and his WeatherUnderground were the countries biggest terrorists.

"""George Stephanopoulos asked Obama to explain his relationship with William Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me."""
"""In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) """
John Murtagh

So I guess if you hung with Timothy MacVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph 25 years after their crimes according to our leading con man, it should not reflect on your own character.

"You are a Clinton supporter by default. If you continue opposing him, you'll be a McCain supporter by default."

Such non-logic but an excellent hissy fit.

It's not too late.....

Nader 08

http://www.votenader.org/

akaison, what I've learned in this long primary process is a) you and I agree more than we disagree, and b) there's a world of interesting insights outside of what you have to contribute. I'm not sure what you want out of this election process - or really, the political process generally - but in terms of significance to the population, we're both pretty marginal. I can live with that... how about you?

Hey, the Nader guys have come along! With the "I supported Hillary but now I'll take this right-winger" people in full effect", Democrats are getting attacked from all sides! Will the Perot militia be along shortly? The Larouche Brigades? Oh the humanity of this multi-front assault!

Both Barack and Hillary have manged to be gracious and magnanimous since his win on June 3rd.

It would be nice to see both his supporters and hers model themselves after the candidates they supposedly admire.

Jacqueline, indeed we are. I don't really see the reason for being reflexively cynical about Obama. No human being is a saint. Not even the saints were saintly at all times. I don't see a purpose behind demanding perfection from our species as riddled with flaws as it is.

Sweetie:

Before you go invoking names like Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray, you might want to dig just a little deeper into the "strength" of the cases against both of them. Google Sirhan and forensics and Foxwoods if you want to take a shortcut. And as to Ray, there's also plenty to suggest you oughta leave him out of your Obama rants for the time being. Your idol's pals don't hold up well under scrutiny. Google BCCI and "Jackson Stephens" for fun -- or read up on McCain's background. That whole line of gab of yours is standard issue troll. Don't waste our time.

Sweetie:

Before you go invoking names like Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray, you might want to dig just a little deeper into the "strength" of the cases against both of them. Google Sirhan and forensics and Foxwoods if you want to take a shortcut. And as to Ray, there's also plenty to suggest you oughta leave him out of your Obama rants for the time being. Your idol's pals don't hold up well under scrutiny. Google BCCI and "Jackson Stephens" for fun -- or read up on McCain's background. That whole line of gab of yours is standard issue troll. Don't waste our time.

Weboy- to rephrase what I said- I am supporting Obama and am with the 80 percent that has moved on beyond the primary. You and a few others still seem to want to fight the primary. I don't personally get it. But I also think this small group of hard core personality driven voters are going to strink as the summer goes on and in terms of Obama campaigning aren't going to matter. My comment wasn't a personalized comment although re-reading it seems like that. It's just the reality of where Obama is going to target his messaging.

Incidentally, this diary is why I write what I have written to you:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/8/11388/90793

The core take away is that the small number of Clinton supporters as you find on TalkLeft don't represent trends. Obama has 80 percent of Democrats behind him, and that's a week after just getting out of a contentious campaign. He had 60 to 70 percent less than a month ago. His numbers at the diary discusses is historically on par with Kerry and Gore at this point, and indeed, is better given the context that both of the other two had months of consolidation at this point in the race, and Obama has just started.

akaison, I don't know how to be clearer: the primary is over. Obama is the nominee. I plan to vote for him, at this point, and to do what I can to support him; as a Democrat, I feel that's my responsibility, one that Mrs. Clinton asked her supporters to join, and as someone who still believes in her, I feel it's my duty to honor her request.

All of that is separate - at least to me - from what I think are a number of tensions within the Democratic party, things that are not about "re-fighting" the primaries, but about how we, as a party, and as a country, look at issues that divide us - issues of race, gender and class that are not new, did not start or end with this primary season - but that, clearly, played an outsize role, in many respects. I don't think those things are "insignificant", if that was the point of your initial response. As well, as we've discussed, the primary process used this year was deeply flawed, if not seriously broken (no matter what the outcome, what happened regarding Florida and Michigan was extremely poorly managed and unnecessarily divisive), and as you asked... who will continue to speak up for reforming it. I know I will, which is what I said to you then, and which is what I was reiterating. I do think these issues, both with process and with our cultural tensions, are big ones, that someone needs to work on, and it's the work that interests me. And I think for an Obama to be successful in the long run - as well as Democrats more generally - that work needs to be done. That's really all I meant. I don't "blame" Obama for stuff and I don't intend to continue to re-argue elements of the primary; it is what it was. But I do think, as this discussion - and no small role on your part in it - has shown, true unity is somewhat elusive. But if you'd like to tar me as not believing in unity... wrong guy. I'm happy to see us come together. I suspect, though, that there's more work to be done to actually achieve that.

Unity is overrated. We just need people to vote democratic. We don't need to falsify things by denying that people do indeed have competing and conflicting interests. In healthcare reform, there will be winners AND losers. Hillary has always been a liar about this, and Obama is far more honest, which is why he has a better chance of success.

I don't see how I am tarring you. I am saying at this point I don't even know what you mean by unity. It sounds more spiritual than political, and I can only hope its not of the Big Tent Democratic variety where unity means blackmail. I don't think thats what you mean, but honestly, reading your post I don't know what you mean beyond Democratcs voting for Democrats.

I am less interested in Obama with regard to the lingering identity politics questions, which the GOP will bring up in their own fashion, as I am in the more crucial question of how pressure can be exerted on Obama from the left so that he is more progressive rather than less in what he plans to do as President. For instance. I hope Edwards and Clinton are able to excert pressures regarding healthcare. I am not very interested in character attacks such as the last poster is engaged regarding how Clinton is a liar.

Incidentally, I would love for Obama to pick Clinton or Edwards to lead the fight on healthcare. I know poverty is Edwards passion, but this sort of issue is integral to that, and I hope he would given serious thought or CLinton would as well to leading what will be a partisan battle. I think This is a first year fight that Obama must be willing to take on to use his political capital. To me, those of the sort of unity things that matter. That we share more in common on the substance.

I mention those two names as opposed to someone like Daschle who has been mentioned, who to me has a record of failure that is unacceptable for such an important task. Clinton had hers in 1993, but I think she would be ready for the fight this time, and so would Edwards.

To soulite's nonsense above:

"S Brennan: Campaigns are a zero-sum game. You spend all your time criticizing Obama, and only say anything about bad Clinton when called on out on your support of her. That makes you a Clinton supporter, and a particularly dishonest one. You may think you're too cool to pick a side, but reality is what it is." - Posted by: soullite | June 7, 2008 6:22 PM

I have this post:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
scoutt
"I can accept disagreeing with her positions but the hatred comes from somewhere else."

When it comes to politicos, duplicity is the most cited offense for hatred, so your point is well taken...my hatred of BOTH Clintons comes from the fact that you can't count on them...that and the fact they always do what's best for themselves and their wealthy friends.

I'm not sure the role of "outright misogyny" plays in my hatred of the Clintons, but similarly criticism of Israel's Lekud party are successfully deflected by accusing the critical person of being an anti-Semite and I assume you wish to follow that well worn line of argument?

Frankly, rather than Obama or Hill & Bill I'd rather see Barbra Jordan [deceased].

Posted by: S Brennan | October 20, 2007 4:12 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And this one:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's funny Jasper,

For those old enough to remember Hill & Bill [ ver. 1.0], circa 1992, they were long on campaign promises and short on legislative accomplishments...unless or course they were bills that would make the Republicans look good.

So when you say:

"My point is, to a lot of working folks -- including non-trivial numbers of Republicans and boatloads of independents -- Hillary Clinton's is the "where's the beef" candidacy. She strikes a lot of people as the person most likely to get a Few Major Substantive Things done"

I got to ask you "where's the beef"

I remember that time well, Hill & Bill's biggest accomplishment in their first two years was replacing 54 Democratic congressmen with Republicans and losing control of the Senate.

As they say in Washington nowadays:

"Heck of a job Hill & Bill...heck of a job"

I would not count on a tech boom to make the forthcoming years look as prosperous as 1998 - 2000

Posted by: S Brennan | October 21, 2007 5:23 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

and then there's:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jasper,

To your comment:

"...she [Clintons] may not convince you, but she obviously convinces a lot of people."

Actually she has yet to convince one voter.

Clearly the media says Hill & Bill are great, but that would be the very same media that told us that Saddam was armed to the teeth with Nuclear, Biological and chemical weapons...oh and that our soldiers would be met with rose petals, not IED's.

Murdoch [News Corp] owns much of...and sets the pace for US media. Murdoch [News Corp] has openly declared for Hill & Bill and spent money and media time on the result. Other news outlets are tainted by similar politics, why should Democrats allow media who has lied on a regular basis be allowed to anoint the Democratic Nominee?

Posted by: S Brennan | October 22, 2007 12:46 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=how_could_clinton_win_nobody_i

So in sum Soulite's proposition above makes him one of three things.

...illiterate...deluded....or a liar

...or perhaps, some combination of the three?

And everything I feel about the Clintons I feel about the Obamas.

S Brennan, I pointed out the realities of political science. You can sit there and spew bile if you want, but it won't change anything.

This is established political science. There is no way not to take a side in elections. If you criticize only one party, you side with the other. If you have a preference and don't vote on that preference, you're siding against the candidate you prefer. If you have no preference and refuse to take part, you're effectively siding with the winner.

There is no way around this in a zero-sum game, all you're doing is proving that you don't really know what you're talking about. You may resent that this is true, in fact you obviously do. You resent me even more for pointing it out. But it's still the truth. There's no way around it. You're just a fool lashing out at the problems in this world while refusing to do anything about them. Try acting like an adult and taking responsibility for your actions and choices. You may well want to argue that they are the right ones, but at least own them for what they are.

Soulite,

Thanks for the reply.

I like your use of recycled Bushism...

"your either with us or against us"

It's settled then...

you are illiterate and deluded.and a liar.

Listen and listen good, Brennan: the Clintons began their life in Washington by putting out the idea, and getting idiots to repeat it, that if you dare to talk about a person's character or behavior, that is "the politics of personal destruction." Hillary tells a lie about dodging bullets, nothing to see there, move on, move on, only pay attention to what's in her position papers. They have always counted on the public and the press being gullible and falling for the idea that examination of a candidate's past behavior( which, added up, equals character) is off limits, verboten, divisive, etc.

Hillary supporters are more likely to come around and work for Obama if they swear off reading progressive blogs for a month or two. Many of us perceived that too many progressive blogs became almost as hurtful and sexist as the mass media, albeit unconsciously in some instances. Saying it was unconscious is being very conciliatory, but I am a 62-year-old social worker and can afford to be kind.

Too many Hillary supporters stopped reading and commenting on their previous favorite blogs. We stopped trying to explain what sexism was and why it was so hurtful. Fewer women seem to love intellectual combat.

I am ashamed to admit that I did too. Fancying myself as a member of the new creative class, I had suddenly become a low-information gullible. What a dismal fate for a reference librarian!

An ambivalent Hillary supporter, I tried rather stridently to discuss feminism and the election on several blogs in January. I then disappeared for five months and only reappeared when I had become an Obama supporter. I love to argue and debate. And yet I slunk away, muzzling myself. I even shut down my political blog.

The progressive blogosphere is bleeding and needs healing. To quote Digby:

'Clinton's campaign ripped open a hole in our culture and forced us to look inside. And what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny that a lot of us knew existed but didn't realize was still so socially acceptable that it could be broadcast on national television and garner nary a complaint from anybody but a few internet scolds like me. "

All of this Hillary supporter stuff is coming from a bunch of online kooks who get riled up by sites like Talk Left and Hillary44. You are not the reality. The reality is represented by the polling data that says that you are a sizeable minority. Nothing I say will convince you that you are living in a bubble, but I figured i would give it a shot again anyway.

ironic that akaison waited until after the primary was over to become an ass

I've always been an ass. In fact, I am so much of an ass I m going to point out that by 50 percent of the general public supports Obama according to Rammussen compared to McCain's 43 percent. Gallup is slowly showing similar trends. 80 percent of the Democrats a week after the primary support Obama the trendlines are that it will increase. So, you go slink back to whatever little hole you want to and sulk there because frankly who gives a shit- the the rest of the real electorate is passing your whiny ass by.

"the the rest of the real electorate is passing your whiny ass by."

Just as they did, getting us into Iraq. Good job!

Akaison for Obama doesn't bode well; he's already supported two losers.

Well she's had to do a complete turn-around and support Obama - it's all politics really and who knows what they really think about each other. It'll be interesting to see which position she ends up in.