Hate is a very destructive emotion. Just ask any person with high blood pressure, or ulcers because their rage gets the better of them. Or ask the victims of hate. All those black men who were lynched in the early twentieth century. All the European Jews who were burned to cinders in the Holocaust. All the victims of all the wars ever fought. Hatred is not a sound foundation for anyone to build their identities upon, or fashion their political careers around, or make the center point of their everyday existence. Sooner or later it brings destruction and devastation to all in its path, both haters and hated alike. For a historical example, just look at Nazi Germany. Or, for a more current one, look at our country today, brought to its knees, economically, militarily, spiritually and morally by the constant hate fed to our body politic by the Republicans and their right wing allies over the last 30 years.
For some time now, I’ve witnessed an unparalleled explosion of hatred within the Democratic party. This presidential primary campaign has been one in which Democrats of all stripes have engaged in the rawest displays of anger and venom toward one candidate or another. Hate that has been fostered and manipulated primarily by the campaign of one candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton. A campaign which demonized Barack Obama as incompetent, corrupt, an elitist, and out of touch with white working class voters. And even worse, one which demonized and demeaned the supporters of Senator Obama and those who voted for him. Obama supporters have been marginalized by the Clintons as effete liberal professionals, left wing semi-Marxist political activists, small state voters who didn’t count as much as large state voters, and, as repugnant as this is to type, as “Jesse Jackson” type African Americans, inconsequential and unimportant. People who didn’t really matter. People who could not form the basis for a Democratic victory against John McCain in the Fall. People who weren’t “real Americans.” People whose issues and desires were of little if any consequence.
(cont.)
Republicans occasionally like to refer to their party as a “Big Tent” which accepts anyone and everyone, but we all know that is a pernicious canard. Since the 1960’s, if not before, the Republicans have long been a coalition of rich people (primarily whites), religious fundamentalist conservative Christians (also primarily whites) and white racists. That was the entire point of their “Southern strategy” and their appeal to “Reagan Democrats;” i.e., we of the GOP are the party of white people first. In short, Republicans have been the party of hatred, bigotry and hostility toward anyone who didn’t fit their carefully constructed mold. A mold which excluded millions of Americans. Indeed, a mold which didn’t even consider many Americans to have a valid claim to citizenship or the prosperity, rights and liberties which Republicans assumed they alone were entitled to enjoy.
In fact, it has been the Democratic party that is the true big tent, embracing African Americans, Gays and Lesbians, Women, Pro-choice Americans, Civil libertarians, Liberals, Environmentalists, Poor people, and people of all colors, ethnicities and faiths, even those unfairly hated and feared Muslim Americans.
Now a coalition as broad as the one contained in the Democratic Party is bound to be a bit untidy at times, with competing interests vying with one another for the attention of Democratic officials, and vigorously promoting action on behalf their own agendas and issues. Often, presidential election contests have been very combative as different groups supported different candidates. Yet, until this year, I’ve have never seen the level of sheer vindictiveness and venom on display among supporters of the principle competitors for the democratic presidential nomination. Never has there existed such bitterness and divisiveness among the party faithful. Not since the era of the “Dixiecrats” have so many Democrats claimed they will refuse to vote for the the party’s nominee if their preferred candidate is the loser.
This is a direct result of two things in my opinion. One, is the fact that never before has the choice for any party been between candidates who represent the two most prominent groups in our country who have never had one of their own elected President: Women and African Americans. For the first time ever, a white man was not guaranteed to be the nominee of a major party. Both Senators Clinton and Obama represent communities for whom the Presidency had always been merely an aspiration, never a realistic possibility. Yet this year, amazingly, the two strongest candidates, and the two most electable candidates, were a women and a black man. This was historic, but it was also a recipe for major disappointment for the supporters of the losing candidate. Inevitably, many people were bound to be angry and disillusioned by the outcome of this race because of their strong gender or racial identification with Clinton or Obama, respectively. Still, that alone would not have resulted in the truly appalling level of vitriol which we have experienced during the course of this campaign.
For that we have Senator Clinton’s campaign to blame. They could have chosen to play this campaign rough, attacking Obama for his policy positions, or his voting record, or for his ties to various interest groups and that would have been understandable. That would have simply been politics as usual, hardball, but not gutter ball. And indeed, that was the campaign they ran against him until he won Iowa. Then he became a threat. After that, they chose to play the race card, first in South Carolina in an attempt to blunt the extent of his anticipated victory. Still, they did not go completely negative, they did not adopt their full bore scorched earth campaign until after “Super Tuesday” when Obama not only survived, he actually won more contests than Senator Clinton, and was poised to win many more thereafter.
At this point, as the Clinton camp watched Obama’s organization beat them in state after state, and witnessed his online financing machine generate a level of campaign contributions they could not hope to match, they became desperate. They had pinned all their hopes on an early knockout blow on Super Tuesday. Hillary was supposed to be the “inevitable candidate” after all, the one with the most big money contributors, the most establishment support and the most name recognition. They never imagined that a black man, a Junior Senator from Illinois with the funny sounding “Muslim” name of Barack Obama, would even be in the race after the first week in February. It was all supposed to be wrapped up by then. She and her advisers literally had no plan, no strategy in place, for any campaign that might last beyond February 5, 2008.
So, the Clinton campaign adopted the tactics which had been used against them by the Republicans all through the 1990’s. They played to the lowest denominator. They questioned Obama’s patriotism. They questioned his character. They tried to make him, the poorest candidate in the race, the one who had the most obstacles to overcome in his life in order to reach the position he now held, as the candidate of privilege and elitism. They tried to make him appear incompetent, the not ready for prime time, candidate, the one who hadn’t passed some as yet unspecified commander in chief test. They dogged him about his faith, his pastor, even the fact that he was by far the best political orator in a generation. They called him the leader of a cult and mocked the thousands of people who attended his campaign rallies as mindless, brainwashed Obamabots.
And, most outrageously, they continually, relentlessly played up his race. He wasn’t electable, they said. whites would never vote for him they said, he was a “Jesse Jackson” race hustler, they said. They destroyed all the good will with the African American community which they had built up over eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, the man who had been anointed America’s first “black president,” and they threw that good will on the trash heap in their relentless attempt to win white voters to vote for the white woman over the black man, even though no Democrat has won the Presidency without the support of the African American community, since the days of Woodrow Wilson.
Even worse, they pandered to their most vicious enemies from the “vast right wing conspiracy,” granting interviews with Richard Mellon Scaife, Bill O’Reilly and the Rush Limbaugh show. They spread lies to their supporters and the media with each new day’s talking points in a smear campaign that seemed to have come straight out of the play book of Karl Rove, rather than from a distinguished Senator and former First Lady of the most popular Democratic President since JFK. They called party leaders who, disgusted with their tactics, had chosen to endorse Obama, traitors, or in the case of Bill Richardson a “Judas” literally on the eve of Easter. They even endorsed outright blackmail by their biggest contributors against Nancy Pelosi, in an attempt to intimidate her from speaking out against the Clinton’s tactics and the tone of their campaign. It was a no holds barred, scorched earth, kitchen sink attack with no class, no ethics and no remorse.
Thus, it was not surprising that Hillary’s most fanatical online supporters fanned this hate against the candidate who has been, and is now, the most likely person to win the Democratic nomination at the convention in Denver. The more Hillary fell behind, the more her candidacy became nothing more than a Quixotic quest to wrest the nomination away from Obama by any means necessary, the more bile they spewed at him and at everyone who simply wanted this bloodbath to end. They painted Obama as the villain in their little melodrama, the man in the black hat (pardon the pun) who was “unfairly” depriving Hillary (and “the voters”) of her rightful place at the top of the ticket, despite the fact that he leads in pledged delegates, states won, the popular vote, and will, I believe, also lead her in super delegate endorsements in the near future.
Well, in my humble opinion, it is time for the hate fest to end. Obama has maintained, for the most part, the high road in this campaign, despite the vicious and unwarranted personal attacks on his person, his race, his political skills, his character, his life and his accomplishments. He has not descended into the sewer where the Clinton campaign was so eager to play, but has remained focused on the issues. His attacks against her have been, for the most part, centered on her record (e.g., her vote for the Iraq War) and her policy proposals (e.g., her “gas tax holiday” which she borrowed from Senator McCain). He didn’t challenge her religious affiliations or her faith, though he certainly could have had he wanted to do so. He didn’t harp on the well known Clinton scandals or ask his surrogates to quote hit pieces from right wing rags to question her fitness for the Presidency in their emails to media figures. Under one of the most maddening and vile assaults that any Democratic candidate has ever endured at the hands of a fellow Democrat, he showed his character.
Now it is time for the Clinton supporters to put down their hatchets and accept Obama as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party. There is nothing more to be gained from attacking him at this point. It won’t resurrect Senator Clinton’s political chances, or her reputation, for that is already irrevocably ruined. All it will do is help John McCain in the general election.
And I ask you, after eight years of the lies and misdeeds and corruption of President Bush and his cabal of warmongering neocons, do we really want to help a man like McCain, who by all accounts is even more dedicated to endless wars in the Middle East than Bus? Do we really want to assist McCain into the oval office, a conservative who promises to continue the same domestic policies of the Bushies which led to the rapid demise of our economy, increased carbon emissions, the continued deregulation of big business that have made all of us less safe at home, at school and at work? In the face of massive debts, trade imbalances, a falling dollar, millions of foreclosures and bankruptcies, do we really want to encourage people to vote for a man who thinks the answer to all our problems is to cut taxes for the benefit of the richest Americans and big corporations even more than Bush did?
I hope not. I hope the Clinton supporters finally get their “come to Jesus” moment, and sooner rather than later. Because this country cannot endure another four years of a Republican in the White House. The way to prevent that is to start to bind up the wounds that divide Democrats, one from another, as soon as possible. We can’t wait until June, or July or August to begin this process. This year’s election is too critical, and the potential damage to our country too great, to continue this internecine warfare one more day, one more hour, or one more minute.
McCain will be a formidable candidate if only because he is a media darling who will be given him every break by the Beltway punditocracy. The last thing any of us need, regardless of who you supported in the primary season, is a continuing divide within our party. All our hands will be needed this Fall pulling in the same direction, if we are to have any chance of reversing the downward spiral into which the Bush and Cheney Gang have led our beleaguered country. To the extent that anyone believes or acts otherwise, they are doing not only the Democratic party a disservice, but America as well.
good post. great post!
and i can’t believe i actually agree with Peggy Noonan about something (hat tip to Jack and jill Politics):
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/declarations.html
Credit where due. She’s right. It’s all race- and gender-baiting for Clinton now. We’re about to watch what might be a truly sad decline.
She still can’t believe that this guy, who four years ago most of us had never heard of, has beaten her.
I’ll say it again. Back in the 1960s it was a strategy of the FBI (a government tool of the ruling class) to divide and conquer the Left by gender and race. That was part of COINTELPRO. Divide and conquer.
At the same time Gloria Steinem, who had been toiling the fields for the CIA in student organizations became a “feminist,” and when she wasn’t dating Kissinger she created MS Magazine with the help of Clay Felker, another CIA alumnus. And guess who came out of retirement and wrote that New York Times op-ed on the eve of the New Hampshire primary saying that women have it tougher than blacks?
Surprise, surprise.
The Clinton campaign is nothing more than a replay of the same strategy. Why would a candidate who cannot win the nomination run a divisive campaign that has the potential of splitting the party? That’s not just a rhetorical question. I am expecting a logical answer. Just because you think that Clinton is acting illogically it doesn’t mean that she is. You just don’t understand her logic and the dynamics within which she operates.
That question is a good one. And the answer seems to be that Clinton is going to continue to gather whatever votes and delegates she can in the contests that are left, then go the SD’s and make her (flimsy) case that they must throw Obama overboard (her citing his many ‘fatal weaknesses’ as a GE candidate). To her, it’s quite logical, the odds in her favor aside. Harold Ickes’ remark about an Obama ‘October surprise’ are also interesting from a Clinton camp perspective. I think they’re going to give it everything they have before they let go — but I hope I’m wrong.
I think they’ve already given everything they have. If they had another scandal in their back pocket they would have played that card in North Carolina.
They’re done.
The best I can say is that she just wants to see this through to the end, make her case, and then accept her lumps. That’s the BEST I can say. I can think of much worse, too.
You touch on something without really following through.
How many blogosphere “democrats” are really and truly Democratic party members? How many are hoping to hide in our midst and persuade us of a different agenda?
I’m just asking. I’m on a list via the DNC site that has two (probably one acting as two) posters who spew bile and hate into the supposedly democratic list. When I finally accused them both of being a republican, they yelled and kicked and screamed but never denied it. Then the list got completely silent, and no one has spoken since. Interesting.
Hm. Do you think that might be why divisions between the various disadvantaged groups that should be natural allies are so pronounced? From what I’ve seen, African-American culture has a hefty dose of misogyny and homophobia, feminists often have problems with racism and homophobia, and GBLT activists tend to fall into the misogynist and racist traps. Incredibly broad strokes, to be sure, but also one reason why these groups have never formed a unified front on civil rights.
Wow, Steinem was CIA? When did I miss this? How bizarre.
Source: http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html
She actually was interviewed by the New York Times in 1967 and admitted her role, well, part of her CIA role, at the International Youth Festival in Helsinki. Her only regret in the interview was that the operation hadn’t been privatized sooner.
This is an exceptionally insightful post, I think — really good. I said it last night: can the Clintonites — inside the blogosphere and out — continue to fight Obama when the stakes, so obvious on even cursory reflection, are so high? Can they hold their collective breath and pout when Obama is all that stands between McCain and the White House? I just can’t imagine that, even given the levels of lunacy we’ve already seen. People are still talking about ‘compromise’ candidates in some quarters if you can believe it.
Great post. Now, for what it’s worth. You touched on it but in my humble, what the greatest danger to a Dem success as well as the general public salvation lies with a correction of the fourth estate! That should be the primary focus. If they are allowed to continue their disgraceful behavior, it will make no difference who the Dems put up as a candidate.
And, this struggle Must be taken on now, not in September. It may well be too late but it will definately be too late after the conventions.
Again, Great Post!
It’s not clear to me whether Hillary Clinton actually believes that Obama would be a better choice for President than McCain.
Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war enthusiastically, and only changed her tune when she began to run in the Democratic primaries. She has cultivated a close relationship with the defense establishment and is viewed by them as an acceptable choice for President. Her foreign policy advisors include cheerleaders for war against Iran. (Her threat to “obliterate Iran” was no accident.)
If Hillary and Bill Clinton sincerely believe that Barack Obama is their preferred candidate for President, should her campaign fail, they have yet to convince her followers. Decrying Obama’s supposed fatal flaws for days on end, and then making an anemic, “Of course, the Democratic candidate will be the better President,” or some other half-hearted statement will not quell the suspicion that maybe she feels John McCain would be the better commander-in-chief.
She has gone out of her way to point to his competency for the job, contrasting him favorably to Obama. So if many of Clinton’s supporters say they will vote for McCain, maybe that is based on a true reading of her opinion. Nothing she does is inadvertent, so the confusion they express may be intentional on the part of her campaign.
Hillary Clinton needs to be called on to state not only that she believes that Barack Obama would be a good President, but she needs to state the reasons she believes so — in detail, repeatedly — to send a message to her supporters that she genuinely wants them to support the presumptive nominee of her own party.
That this even needs to be said shows how little the good of the Democratic party has played in her actions these past several months. Her megalomaniacal, Ahab-like quest for the Presidency will soon — thankfully — be over. Now she must be called upon to undo the damage that she has done to her party and to her country. Let her show that she is a patriot, after all.
The competency argument is bogus.
The Republicans had no problem with an incompetent empty suit actor with Alzheimers. They just wanted someone who didn’t get in the way of the agenda.
If you are a real Democrat you know that you want a President who is generally more humanitarian, more supportive of a tax plan that benefits the lower ninety-eight percent. Someone who will work for the safety net, the social structure, etc. Someone who will work for social justice. Less belligerent in international affairs. Looking out for the long-term interests of the majority of people.
Are these Clinton’s real interests? Look at Bill Clinton’s accomplishments for the people: the gutting of the safety net, shipping manufacturing jobs overseas, yet another incredible expansion of the drug wars aimed directly at people of color. And Chelsea runs a hedge fund. If David Shuster had wanted to hurt Hillary through Chelsea he should have mentioned her real occupation, not some sexualized stupidity.
If the Clintons were true Democrats, then how could she dare to utter support for McCain? After all, just having a Democrat in the White House allows legislation to move forward. How could suggesting that McCain would be a better President to help to move along the Democratic agenda. How much healthcare legislation will get signed into law by President McCain? If healthcare means anything to Clinton then how could abet the candidacy of someone who would surely prevent it?
How much of Clinton’s ammunition was directed at the Republican nominee?
The Clintons and their DLC brethren aren’t just LIKE Republican Lite. They ARE Republican Lite. The Clintons are the moral equivalents of John McCain. You are not more competent for being the Commander-In-Chief because you were shot down during a bombing run against civilians. You take their money, you do their bidding.
I think it’s interesting that we find it hard to understand how the far right can be so vulnerable to conservative talking points despite all logical evidence to the contrary and yet many on the Democratic side have fallen for the same tactics.
This race was over months ago for anyone looking at the math, but the Clintons have used the same right-wing appeal to baser emotions to prolong this spectacle and manipulate their supporters. No one in our party should ever wonder at the success of right-wing style gutter politics again.
I’ve always been proud of our party for not having the republican propensity for going for the jugular, and hope that it ends with the Clintons. It should not be tolerated by anyone in our party. Ever.
I’ll answer my own question.
The Republicans represent the financial interests of that top tenth of one percent of the wealth in America. They don’t represent white folk over black folk. They manage to get a majority of the votes by discouraging people from voting, directly blocking people from voting, and getting people so afraid and angry that they vote against their own interests.
In essence, every Republican victory is stealing an election. And the Republicans are just the political structure that functions for the benefit of the ruling class. That’s why the CIA and the military are overseas protecting oil interests or stealing natural resources from brown people. That’s why the FBI functions to suppress dissent at home. The Republican Party, the CIA, the FBI, the military. They are all units to preserve and expand the distance between the haves and the rest of us.
The Clinton strategy was deliberate. It was no accident. Robert Parry writes that all the Wright stuff, the Ayers stuff, even “Obama’s dead mother was a Red” stuff, all that was opposition research that was done by the Clinton campaign and ready to go back in December. Clinton’s campaign planned to go dirty, divisive and racist back in December. From Bill’s comments in South Carolina to Hillary’s latest with the hard-working white folk, all of that was part of the plan. Step back and look at the whole of it. Think about how easily Hillary ceded the black vote when she actually had the majority of African Americans at the start of this campaign. Why?
That is the way to intentionally divide up the Dems.
I would suggest that a number of the commenters on the blogs and calling into talk shows are probably Republican operatives out there to stir up the foulest emotions among Dems. They are the amplifiers of the message of division. Really, where did the meme that Clinton is owed the White House because she is a woman come from? How preposterous is that?
Back during the S&L scam it was proven that the safest, most efficient way to rob a bank was to own it. So instead of putting cameras in the board room they put more cameras in the lobby. Get it?
What’s the easiest way to steal an election, folks?
It’s a good thing I read the comments first because she wrote exactly what I was going to.
I do have a quibble. You wrote:
His name is not “Muslim” it’s Arabic.
True, but to the her audience, it is a “Muslim” name.
No Open Thread. Not enough info for a diary.
Breaking News: Horror and Shock, May 09, 2008 10:52 AM
One Dead, Train with 260 people Quarantined in Ontario, Canada
How does this fit into Reverend Wright’s theory?
Well!
That was a little over the top. You are not likely to stop the ‘cycle of hate’ when you equate your opponents with Germany. You helped me during this election Boo, you really did. You made the repeated point that while it appeared the two candidates were pretty much the same policy-wise, you could judge them by the company they keep. So I looked at that. You made a convincing case of the ‘down ticket’ potential of Obama vs. Clinton. So I looked at that. You explained that Obama ran the only type of campaign he HAD to run, and the only one that would win. And I saw your point.
But ‘hate’? I have to look away. They used the low road. But it was out of blind ambition, not hate. In a way, THEY also ran the campaign they had to, the only one that had a chance. Very much like the republicans.
The perfect storm is brewing, a combination of economic and foreign issues that look to sweep democrats into office in HUGE numbers. The Clintons see this, and then an ‘upstart’ steps in and steals THEIR place, and in the space of a month it slips away. It’s desperate ambition, but not hate. There’s rage, frustration, and fear. But it is not hate.
I think this post will be one you regret.
nalbar
Uh, Steve D. wrote that, not BooMan.
God darn it!
I keep Writing ‘Boo’ when I write. Even when I see the other name!
I apologize. It’s what I get for using a write program and cut and paste.
Please don’t hate me for it.
nalbar
I never get upset when someone confuses me with BooMan. It’s a compliment.
And while I appreciate the goodness in yourself may prevent you from seeing the hate in others, I submit you have not been to the NoQuarter blog lately, where hate really IS the only appropriate term.
What’s the difference between CIA and ex-CIA?
In Larry Johnson’s case, it’s the job title. And maybe a little less in the budget for haircuts.
It’s true that I don’t go to ALL the sites (Taylor Marsh is quite good enough, thank you), you must admit that this post is pretty much inclusive in who is a ‘hater’. The stuff is disgusting Lisa, I admit that.
But I do not consider this post productive in any way, no matter who wrote it.
But I won’t belabor the point, I have already shown myself to be stupid enough.
nalbar
Not Boo, Steven.
But to the larger point. Did Hillary call off the dogs, ’cause I still hear her and hers barking.
They’re having a frenzied, venom-spewing, hissy fit. It’s gonna get even worse before it gets better.
Actually, what I say is that Clinton;s campaign engendered hate among Democrats. I don’t know whether they hate Obama or not, but I do know that their actions have have been responsible for dividing the Democratic party and for the incredible amount of ill will that each side’s followers feels toward the other side.
Agreed.
Was it intentional?
When did it start becoming intentional?
Well, I’d argue it became apparent in the run-up to the South Carolina primary. So it was an intentional tactic by that point. They backed off a little bit before Super Tuesday, but ratcheted it back up after she began her losing streak in February.
Whether it was in the works all along I don’t know. I suspect if Obama had shown poorly in Iowa, we never would have seen Clinton’s campaign go negative on him.
Excellent diary, Steven D. Is this also available in orange?
I still can’t connect to Orange. If you like, you are free to repost it there with a link back to Booman Tribune.
Yesterday Edwards’ former campaign manager endorsed Obama and today
Obama wins praise from former rival John Edwards
Fri May 9, 2008 11:52am EDT
steven this is your worst diary ever
i have two points
you arent talking about the democratic party….99% of the democratic party dont give a shit and dont participate in blogs , esp the winger blogs where all this nonsense is taking place….out on the street, people dont give a fuck…they just want to vote, pay their bills, hang out with their kids, stay above water…all this fighting is out of their zone of who gives a rats ass….most dont know the difference between a superdelegate and a pledged delegate….really…..nobody gives a flying crap….its much more important to people who is going to win american idol…sometimes i wish i lived in that world of peaceful ignorance.
second there was and is enough hatred to go around…..i dont really give a fuck who started it….but ive seen it from both campaigns, from the so called surrogates, from the activists, and all over the blogs….i never went to a hillary clinton blog until i got so disgusted by the tone and filth on the obama blogs that i went over to see if it was really as bad….they are THE SAME!!!!! sexism, racism, and now we get to see ageism for the next few months…..yippeeee….no one can take the high road….i wish i could find a blog that didnt participate in the demonization of any candidate but so far i havent found one….if you know of one let me know.
Anna, I’m sorry you think so. I believe that regardless of the nasty blog comments on pro-Obama sites, the reason this campaign and the various supporters of the candidates became so antagonistic was the fault of the Clinton campaign. Everything I discussed above actually happened. And you can’t tell me it’s restricted to the blogosphere, not when exit polls indicate as much as a third of Clinton voters in the primaries say they will refuse to vote for Obama in the general if he is the nominee, and 20% or so of Obama supporters say they will refuse to vote for Hillary.
Would campaign supporters for Obama and Clinton have been nasty to each other even if both candidates had run typical campaigns? Yes, but not nearly this nasty. And the only reason I can see for why that happened was the decision of the Clinton camp to go all negative on Obama, including the consistent and disgusting racist appeals they made to white voters. I don’t think Obama was 1/10oth as harsh in his negative campaigning against Clinton as she was to him. And by all accounts the super-delegates are coming to that same conclusion.
Can you point me to one case of sexism perpetrated by a pro-Obama blogger? I don’t mean in the comments or the diaries, but on the front-page.
I haven’t seen one case of it in any of the blogs I read in the entirety of the campaign.
Moreover, never once has the Obama campaign made any negative reference to Clinton’s gender, her associations with women’s groups, or diminished her supporters because they’re heavily female.
There also in absolutely no equivalency between what I write, the people at Daily Kos write, the people at Open Left write, and what is written at NoQuarter, Hillaryis44, TalkLeft, and Taylor Marsh.
But Booman, didn’t you know? There’s no real difference between
Al Gore and GW BushJohn Kerry and GW BushHillary Clinton and Barrack Obama!When I asked this a few threads ago, all I got back was the “periodically” thing, something about “the claws coming out”, and Michelle apparently saying something nasty about Monica Lewinsky. Really horrible stuff, let me tell you…
The arguments thrown out about the sexism from the Obama campaign have been so lame. Don’t care about Tweety. Don’t care about Shuster. Anne from Philly has had a few days to come up with some facts to back up her argument. We’re still waiting.
I haven’t been reading every blog, or every comment on every blog, but the stuff from the Clinton supporters has been more over the top, IMO.
As just one example: a superdelegate from a red state responded to a deluge of emails he has received over the last 24 hours from Clinton supporters:
“I am horrified by this effort to threaten votes for McCain if super delegates don’t vote for Sen. Clinton. I have received hundreds of emails from both sides – but I can say without exception that I have not received a single email from an Obama supporter that threatened a vote for McCain if I didn’t support Sen. Obama. You really ought to be ashamed.”