fayfreethinkers.com

..so the analysis is that basically Obama out-campaigned her, through better strategy and better money management. Plus his platform of change vs. her platform of experience just went over better.

To me, whining is when you call "no fair" and blame others for your failure, when it is as fair as it can be and you should accept responsibility for your own failures. There is no gender factor.

I saw the thing on the Daily Show last night, too. Since I don't watch FOX news, I had never seen/heard the vast majority of those comments. After seeing that, I would agree that, on FOX news, Hillary was definitely the victim of misogynistic reporting.
[/b]

just after I posted that, I read an article that says Hillary's gender did not cost her the election (didn't think it did), and included this paragraph:

But with Senator Clinton prepared to suspend her campaign Saturday, gender does not belong on that list, analysts say. Certainly, she encountered sexism on the trail and in media coverage, and a quick cruise around the Web could have found some of the crudest examples of misogyny imaginable aimed at her. But being female did not cost her the nomination.


I haven't seen any of these crude comments online, but I can imagine that they exist especially on conservative blogs. So, I'm willing to admit the problem Doug brought up is more pervasive than I originally believed, that belief being based on the things I've seen and read. Which, I do watch a lot of political shows and read a lot of articles about the campaign, so I don't think those attacks are necessarily mainstream....

Betsy wrote: After seeing that, I would agree that, on FOX news, Hillary was definitely the victim of misogynistic reporting.
[/b]

DAR
Lots, probably even most of those clips were not from FOX news. Glenn Beck is CNN, as is Chris Matthews. Scarborough is MSNBC. Etc.

I don't think those attacks are necessarily mainstream....

DAR
I think the above guys represent mainstream TV. Unfortunately.

Doug wrote in response to me:

Just don't turn anarchist like Hogeye!

Oy, don't call him an anarchist, it gives anarchism a bad name. I have anarchist tendencies, but of the anarcho-socialist stripe. He is an anarcho-capitalist, which is just a fancy name for libertarian, which in my opinion, is just another name for good old fashioned liberal-capitalist pig.


Doug

I don't see it as whining to want to have two of the largest states have their votes count. If the primary season had been winner-take-all, as the Republicans do it, Hillary would have been the winner two months ago.

But who cares about that? I don't want a winner take all system, I want democracy, i.e. whoever gets the most votes wins. A winner take all system is antithetical to democracy. Thats how Gore could 500,000 more votes than Bush, and still lose. We need to change the winner take all system, and create a true democracy. Instead, I see my fellow lefties who supported Hillary arguing for the same undemocratic system that gave Bush an election he lost.

But you are correct, if it had been a winner take all system, Hillary would have won while still losing the popular vote, and THAT would have pissed me off to no end. Not because it was Hillary, but because its undemocratic.

I'm just glad this mess is over. I have to hand it to Hillary, she finally did get out, thank goodness. I thought she was going to kick and scream and wreck the Dems completely.

Here is to her knowing, finally, to accept that she lost! Does anyone really think an Obama/Clinton ticket is a possibility after this mess??

Here's a really funny clip about Fox News Obama commentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWVGmyyhx8g

Tim

Obama's comment that "they cling to guns or religion ... as a way to explain their frustrations" has already been discussed here. That comment gives me a great deal of hope when it comes to Obama, but his overall policies are optimistic as well.

The deep underlying partnership between lawmakers and conservative Christians in this country is astounding. For Obama to stand up for abortion rights and gay rights shows that he is able to look beyond the restrictions of his personal religion, and let each of us make our own decisions and live our own lives under The First Amendment.

Yes, I agree that Obama has shown that he is level-headed, open minded, intelligent, gracious, honest and a man of strong moral fibre. Those who say he'll be bad for America and say they're "afraid" of his morals are just mad because he isn't exactly like they are. He will be one of the best presidents in American history.

Hillary stayed in the race for multiple reasons, one of which being that until about 2 weeks ago, she could have won. With the winner take all system that is both the R system and the general election system (only 2 states have proportional electoral college representation) she WOULD have won (and the race was close enough she would have won both delegates and popular vote, because of the many people who "vote for the winner" - Obama benefitted from that with our current system and Hillary would have in the other system). She also stayed in because without her the excitement generated by having "real" elections in all 50 states (and DC and Puerto Rico) wouldn't have happened - and we'll need that to take the general. And a third reason was to gather enough "clout" to get her universal healthcare plan as part of the party platform. SHE never endangered the party. She always said she'd back the winner - actually "work my heart out" for the winner is what she said. Her speech yesterday was beautiful, but I'd bet you money (not much 'cause I don't have much) that there are Obama supporters out there who will find something in it to "prove" that evil Hillary is trying to destroy the party or Obama's chances or something - just like they've been saying about everything she's said for the last 6 months or so (even her statement in support of him to AIPAC a few days ago - one of his supporters claimed she was working against him because she called him "Senator Obama" instead of President Obama)).

I don't like the tactics - every time Hillary tried to raise an issue, Obama "punted" and his surrogates called the raising of the issue "racist" or "kitchen sink" or "endorsing McCain" - she raised issues and his surrogates attacked her personal integrity for doing so, while Obama himself stayed "above ordinary politics". However, it worked and those kind of tactics may be the only hope we have of winning this election (considering how many people in this country really won't vote for a black - or a woman). That said, like Hillary, I will work for Obama. Maybe not "work my heart out" but definitely he will be getting my money, my campaigning, and my vote.

I really don't want her on the ticket as Veep. I'd rather she return to the Senate and write universal health care and green jobs/bonds and global warming reduction and education bills for President Obama to sign. As much as I hate it, we've had notice on Ted Kennedy and somebody has to pick up that torch. I think it's going to be Hillary (although only time will tell). If Hillary had won the nomination, Obama would have been a wonderful Veep or even SCOTUS nominee, but the flip side isn't true. Hillary's strengths don't lie in those directions. But one of the things she is superb at is crafting legislation. (She didn't "botch" healthcare in 1994, she wrote legislation and Congress had conniption fits about it, since that's their job. That coupled with the insurance industry's anti-healthcare ad campaign did UHC in back then. Irony of ironies with the next - R-controlled - congress - Their excuse for not getting anything done was the president didn't send them any legislation to work on.)

I wish Hillary'd won. I like her program better than his - they largely put the same money into the same issues, but hers is more focused and would get the job done more completely - and faster. However, even if I weren't a "yaller dawg" I'd be voting for Obama. This election is critical. This nation (over my mostly inaudible protest) has piddled away all its time and most of its resources to deal with the challenges we face - economy, democrasy, and possibly civilization itself - we literally do not have enough time for McCain's "pedal to the metal" and may not have enough time for Obama (or Hillary, although her program works faster, it's not that much faster) to stop the bus before it goes over the cliff.

Betsy wrote: He will be one of the best presidents in American history.

DAR
I hope you are right. However, I think America is on a trajectory, that will be very hard for any president/congress to turn around. I hope you are right.

BARBARA said:
Hillary stayed in the race for multiple reasons, one of which being that until about 2 weeks ago, she could have won.

DAR
You're right. About two weeks ago the Mclaughlin Group polled the members regarding Hillary's chance of still pulling it out (after she had been written off for quite a while and many we screaming that she hadn't given up). Most of them gave her odds of 3/10.

D.

BARACK OBAMA won't say the Pledge of Allegiance !

Go here to watch that lie put to rest:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/patriot

There's an entire website devoted to fighting
the smear campaign Rush Dopehead Limbaugh
and the rest of the slime crew is running against
both Michelle and Barack Obama

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ ... mearshome/

There is no bottom to the level of contempt these slime creatures
have for Americans.
.

I'm glad the Obama team has started that website.

And, I want to take issue with Barbara's statement that "every time Hillary tried to raise an issue, Obama "punted" and his surrogates called the raising of the issue "racist" or "kitchen sink" or "endorsing McCain" - she raised issues and his surrogates attacked her personal integrity for doing so, while Obama himself stayed "above ordinary politics"."

That is not true. That happened when Hillary raised NON-issues. Issues are things like health-care, the war, the economy, etc. Obama did not want to get involved in nonsense, like 3-a.m. phone calls, etc.

If Barbara (or others) would like to defend that statement, I'd be interested in examples of when that happened.

I'm glad the Obama team has started that website.

So far it's symbolic of BHO's smarter campaign. His staff seems more adept at using IT than in any prior election. He must keep referring to the website. Perhaps journalists, except FAUX News which isn't journalism, will check out the smears before repeating them.

If BHO must respond to any of the several smears, lies, etc then it creates yet another news cycle, "Obama Denies blah, blah, blah..." and so on. This is an attempt to reduce having to repeat or respond to any of it. smart so far, if the site gets hits.

LaWood wrote:

IPerhaps journalists, except FAUX News which isn't journalism, will check out the smears before repeating them.

DAR
Faux News will go there to learn new smears they might have missed. It's not like they are interested in if they are true or not.
I heard the site mentioned twice today. It will get a lot of exposure and I think it is a good idea.

Regarding Obama's coverage, quite a compilation. Read it and weep:

The Weekly Update from Media Matters for America

Has the American media always been this f-ing stupid and inane?

Dar wrote:

Has the American media always been this f-ing stupid and inane?

Yep. Since the era of mass democracy began, the whole process has been shamelessly stupid. You can find examples all the way back. It's not a new phenomena. Democracy means selling and demonizing. Plato foresaw this a long time ago. It's a sick and disgusting game, void of serious issues and honestly and credibly dealing with them. The public is mostly to blame for that. Politicians and pundits would not dally in absurdities if they did not work, or if there was a serious penalty for doing so.

That's why I get soooo cynical so often.

DAR
But Tony, I don't remember politics and the media being this stupid up in Canada. Granted, I was a kid and didn't pay much attention. But Canadian politics are pretty boring, I suppose because they are more adult. Here it is a sport. I don't know that it follows that democracy must = "selling and demonizing" and "daily absurdity." A little is understandable but the amount tolerated in this country is ridiculous.

I'll give Betsy 2 examples, and then, with her permission, let it drop. CinC cred and white working class voters. Hillary brought up commander in chief credentials in multiple debates and asked Obama for his. Between the moderators and the other candidates, that was either laughed at or glossed over. When she pointed out that she had them (and listed reasons why) and McCain had them (America grants CinC cred to any R who's served) and said it was up to the Obama people to provide his, she was attacked as "endorsing McCain". Towards the end of the campaign, Hillary pointed out, as a reason why automatic delegates (super delegates) should vote for her, that she was getting the white working class vote demographic. It was true and it's a very important segment of the voting population. She was accused of racism for bringing that up.

Now - Obama won. I'm working for him (in sending money and responding to nutcase attacks wherever I see them). I will, of course, vote for him. I don't like the way Hillary was treated, but that is history now. Let it go.

My take on this is that a person's own bias very much influences their perception of events. I do not feel Hillary was "attacked" for saying white working class voters in the way Barbara describes.

Hillary worded a statement badly by saying "the good hardworking people... white working class people..." because that made the implication that black people aren't good hardworking people. But there were an equal number of poor wordings and attacks from both sides and I don't believe it was uneven AT ALL. I could make a long laundry list of attacks that Hillary waged against Obama for things that were trivial or comments that weren't worded very well and therefore misconstrued or twisted around, and you could make a list, and we could compare them and they'd probably come out the same.

Hopefully as a little time passes the Hillary supporters who are still calling foul (I'm not talking about those here) will clear their heads and get on with it, as you have.

BTW, interesting article in the Demo-Gaz Op/Ed section today about how Hillary not only lost the nomination, she lost her dignity in the process. (from the Economist)

It pretty much voices my opinion except that I really don't think she meant to imply anything about BHO being assassinated. Other than that, though, it was spot on. Here's a link:

http://nwarktimes.com/adg/Perspective/228806/

Betsy wrote:But there were an equal number of poor wordings and attacks from both sides and I don't believe it was uneven AT ALL. I could make a long laundry list of attacks that Hillary waged against Obama for things that were trivial or comments that weren't worded very well and therefore misconstrued or twisted around, and you could make a list, and we could compare them and they'd probably come out the same.

DOUG
They were not poorly worded. They were spun by the Obama supporters to falsely make Hillary look like she was saying something racist or anti-Obama. The same is true of how they spun Bill Clinton's words. And the press, anti-Hillary and easily led by the nose, went with it. Terrible.

Betsy wrote:
Hopefully as a little time passes the Hillary supporters who are still calling foul (I'm not talking about those here) will clear their heads and get on with it, as you have.

DAR
Right-wing anti-Hillary articles like this one, which spin every fact to make her look in the worst possible light, and Obama the best, really just make that more difficult. It's time to stop kicking her already.

BTW, interesting article in the Demo-Gaz Op/Ed section today about how Hillary not only lost the nomination, she lost her dignity in the process. (from the Economist)

DAR
I disagree 100%. I think her stock went up and I think she certainly helped raise herself, politically, long term. The tiny debt she racked up is insignificant in the big picture. One could just as easily spin the fact that she invested her own money in her campaign to say this showed her determination to win, seriousness and devotion to give it her all in respect to many of her supporters who did the same. Hillary lost by a whisker. This is all after the game "cooda beans." If the wind had blown slightly differently and she won, financially backing her own campaign would be trumpeted as a Really Smart Move.

If you google "A Dynasty Collapses," the title of this incredibly slanted, anonymous, 100% Hillary bashing article, you get the ADG source and another site that has posted it: GOPusa.com. It doesn't get more nutty rightwing Hillary hating than GOPusa.com. I have dealt with them before. They'll love it there.
Obama people that want to move on need to pass the word. Stop piling the same old distortions onto Hillary. Obama wants you to stop. It is not productive. Get over the Hillary hatred already.

It pretty much voices my opinion except that I really don't think she meant to imply anything about BHO being assassinated.

DAR
That's where you draw the line eh? Of all the slurs and BS thrown against her that one has been the most amazing to me. Many on the left have made utter fools out of themselves by passing it around (I am thinking of a left wing commentator on Sirus Left: Mark Thompson). He's on in the afternoons and encouraged this distortion. He should know better.

Other than that, though, it was spot on.

DAR
It's just a rather thorough summary, check list if you will, of all the lame Hillary bashing that has gone on. Not a drop of new information. Barrack supporters who want Hillary supporters to: "clear their heads and get on with it", meaning get on with supporting him, need to stop piling on with this same old stuff.

Question for Barbara (I'm pretty sure she has given this the smack down before). The article states: "...Clinton’s “experience” included her decision to vote in favor of invading Iraq,..."

Did Hillary "vote in favor of invading Iraq?"

D.

You're right - enough Hillary bashing - I just pointed out the article because it does summarize her mistakes and her poorly run campaign and millions of people (surely I'm not that unique) see it this way, and not just the right-wing.

I'm not going to convince you to see it any other way than you do -- seems no matter what she does, millions of Hillary loyalists can't see her in any light but a positive one, so Barbara's also right that we should just drop the subject. It's moot now, anyway.