My admiration for Edwards went right down the tubes when he endorsed Obama,deliberatety, to step on Hillary.

He could have waited a few days, but that was planned on purpose. I did notice Elizabeth was not there, she is always by his side.

She has been a strong Hillary supporter. Something is not quite right in that endorsement and I smell pay off!

LaurieAnnM,

Please, stop the “HRC as victim” nonsense. It’s getting tiresome. Hillary ran a bad campaign. She thought she had it in the bag, then Iowa happened and she realized she had work to do. After her very un-presidential crying display, she tried to catch up but this is where we stand now…

Obama leads in pledged delegates (1,602 to 1,444), superdelegates (303.5 to 279.5), overall delegates (1905.5 to 1723.5), the popular vote (16,157,639 to 15,583,020), and the total number of contests won (31 to 17).

Of course the media focused on the superficial, media outlets are businesses and superficial sells. Why does it sell? Because this country is filled with people with simplistic views and lazy minds (TWO terms for Bush).

Obama had to deal with the same beast.

Listen, Obama didn’t spend all of her money, he never commented on her appearance, he didn’t advise her to pander with empty pseudo-working class musings and photo-ops and economic quick fixes.

It’s not his fault. Nor it is it the fault of his supporters who are bored with the whining and delusions of victimization the HRC supporters can’t let go of. It is immature and it requires a nimble dance around reality.

Honestly, if you really cared about that little girl in the picture and millions of others like her you wouldn’t even contemplate letting McCain shift the Supreme Court to the far right or continue a foreign policy based on aggression.

But it isn’t really about them, is it?

By the way…

“'Hope' for more fair and equal treatment for women will continue to thrive.”

Really? Do you really feel this way?

“His choice of a wife is pretty indicative of how stupid he thinks women are. Damn, jegal..That last line is amazing revealing food for thought about him for real! Great call!”

This is petty and catty but, more important, hypocritical. It contradicts the core of your initial post.

LaurieAnn --

This reluctance of feminists to get behind Obama is, quite frankly, something I do not understand at all. We have a clear choice in this election -- between two men, yes, but two very different men. One (Obama) has a clear, deep and abiding respect for women -- especially strong women like his mother and his wife. The other calls his wife sexist slurs in public and has been openly disdainful of women in general.

One of these two men will appoint at least two Supreme Court justices -- who will hear cases on reproductive choice, Title IX, and gender discrimination. I see this petulant refusal to support Obama because he happened to have beat a woman in the primary as extremely self-destructive to the cause of women.

Clinton is not the nominee. However, it is not yet clear whether her campaign will prove to be a positive or a negative milestone for women. If Clinton's supporters engage in wholesale self-destruction by either not voting or by voting for McCain, then Clinton's campaign will have been disastrous both for the Democratic Party and for the Feminist Movement. Whether that happens is entirely up to Clinton's feminist supporters.

Beathan

my friend...if ONLY it had been. "In every way imaginable, she was the better of the two candidates for the nomination." You got that right, G.

Wow, three of my favorite Hillary-fans in one sub-thread, how lucky for me. I just wish I could express my deep fray-affection & appreciation for you, old buddy, w/out risking the ridicule of the nay-sayers from the BOTYou Know Where Fray. :-) Did you ever start up another BLOG, by any chance?

Also, I know you're in prose mode these days, G. but if you have a chance and feel like viewing today's posted poem on the PFray, I would welcome your response. I like it but seem to be in the minority so far, at least today. "Be well," mon ami, "L."

can / could actually win in the general but ONCE AGAIN (think Dukakis, think Mondale, think John Kerry) the DNC has anointed the wrong candidate. It's boggling my mind and may even drive me away from the party ... which will be v. hard for me, being a lifelong Dem. and all. Luckily on our statewide & local level, we have v. good candidates whom I can support without reservation. I envy you having your mother still alive & hearty with whom to discuss these issues, because my own mother, also a lifelong Dem and far more active even than I have been, is dead now & I really miss having those long heated political talks w. her. My Dad, too, but he died a while back and I'm more accustomed now to that loss & absence.

Hello Jeqal, and other Hillary supporters,

Although I disagree with pretty much all of your interpretations, I can at least understand why you would believe most of what you do. What I can't understand is your last two sentences here.

"Obama has been the worst at this also, I feel as if he is some throw back from the 50s. His choice of a wife is pretty indicative of how stupid he thinks women are."

I mean she is obviously very intelligent, talented, and successful and independent. I know she's made some statements that cause people to question her patriotism, but I hope that you understand blind patriotism is not such a great attribute. So, what is wrong with her? More, what about him "choosing her" (as if she didn't also choose him) indicates a low opinion of him.

As for the other part of your statement, how specifically has he been the worst. If not the worst, how has he himself demonstrated a lack of respect for women ("sweetie" flap I know, but disagree with you about probably).

Oh and tangentially, I think most male news anchors are pretty dumb and chosen for looking good on tv also.

Regards,

Blueshift

I know. I wondered about that,too,MaryAnne.he was very complimentary about HRC when he gave his endorsement. Yet, there he was right at that moment and clearly it was designed to take the media's focus off of her huge win in W. Va. Couldn't have the media discussing any possible ramifications of what the win might mean in regards to the general sway of the voters current ambivelence in regards to Obama.Nope, they had to put the stopper on that possible reality check.

Then, to matter himself appear even less credible he went on the morning news the next day and insisted the timing was not contrived.

Do these politicians really think we are all as gullible as the Koolaide crowd? Apparently they do.

I know how I felt when I saw him do that at that particular moment. I knew I wasn't alone in that reaction. thx.

;-)

Beathan:

LaurieAnn --

This reluctance of feminists to get behind Obama is, quite frankly, something I do not understand at all. We have a clear choice in this election -- between two men, yes, but two very different men. One (Obama) has a clear, deep and abiding respect for women -- especially strong women like his mother and his wife. The other calls his wife sexist slurs in public and has been openly disdainful of women in general.

One of these two men will appoint at least two Supreme Court justices -- who will hear cases on reproductive choice, Title IX, and gender discrimination. I see this petulant refusal to support Obama because he happened to have beat a woman in the primary as extremely self-destructive to the cause of women.

Clinton is not the nominee. However, it is not yet clear whether her campaign will prove to be a positive or a negative milestone for women. If Clinton's supporters engage in wholesale self-destruction by either not voting or by voting for McCain, then Clinton's campaign will have been disastrous both for the Democratic Party and for the Feminist Movement. Whether that happens is entirely up to Clinton's feminist supporters.

Beathan

Great post Beathan. It's refreshing to read someone speaking with such reason.

Staunch Clinton supporters talk repeatedly about bias against Hillary, whether it be racial, sexist, or emotional; yet, as you stated, they are willing to vote against their principles out of what appears to be spite. How could you possibly shift your stances so dramatically? Why were you not voting Republican to begin with? Clinton and McCain are nothing alike in regard to policy, etc. You'll be voting against your own interests. That's the very definition of personal bias.

Also, why people cannot understand/acknowledge that Hillary is judged by her character and actions, not her sex. McCain is constantly made fun of for his age, and no one's complaining. This the big leagues and it's how they operate. Classy? No? But a reality, yes. And the supposed campaigning for Obama? Ha. Clinton was never seriously held accountable for her claims of 35 years of experience or the fact that Jermiah Wright had visited the Clinton White House--or that Bill pardon members of the Weathermen. Florida and Michigan? She should be held to fire for this, but she's not. She is now tellinng voters in Kentucky that she's ahead in the popular vote--except she's not, unless you count FL and MI and discount the caucus states. Sounds like "Fuzzy math" to me.

That same NYT article quotes several women who directly state that they will not support Obama because it was Hillary's and he "stole" the nomination from her. Puuuhlease! It's never anyone's turn.

"Women felt this was their time, and this has been stolen from them,” said Marilu Sochor, 48, a real estate agent in Columbus, Ohio, and a Clinton supporter. “Sexism has played a really big role in the race.”

<link>

Obama offers a fresh perspective, that's his appeal to most, but in Hillaryland that means he's a sexist.

Elizabeth Edwards was not there because she is a vehement supporter of Hillary Clinton and does not want to be part of anything that could be perceived (misperceived) as cutting her historic bid short.

Even though it is well known that they don't really like each other (Obama thinks that Edwards is too slick by half; Edwards favored Hillary until the writing was on the wall), John Edwards endorsed Obama out of Party unity. Now is the time for the Democrats to unify as a Party. For a long time, there was no credible scenario under which Hillary Clinton could win the nomination (which is decided by delegates). Now, Obama is winning by every possible measure (including the "out of the hat" measures trumpeted by the Clinton campaign in their wooing of Superdelegates).

Obama leads in pledged delegates and Superdelegates -- giving him an insurmountable delegate lead. Obama won more states -- and won critical states that the Democrats need in the Fall (if that is a measure) such as Wisconsin and Washington. He won states that could flip blue -- and he has the best chance of flipping them (such as Virginia, Missouri and Colorado). He has a lead in the popular vote (a huge lead unless he is given no votes in Michigan, where his supporters were not given the chance to vote for him). Edwards did the good thing -- standing with his Party in this critical election year, rather than undermining it by silence and inaction.

Beathan

Do you have some actual reason for attacking the Top Poster? or is it just more Obama-naut over-confident arrogance, just curious? Did you actually READ the New York Times article? NOT. All you read was Laurie's heartfelt and disappointed post. Correct? It isn't about "Hillary as victim" at all -- it is about her historic campaign as a possible model & predictor of other such candidacies in the future. But if you do not see the sexism implicit in not only this campaign (and MANY of Obama's condescending behaviors towards her, effectively captured the other day on one of the major network news programs...) but in so many responses by Fraysters, then I have to wonder about your own sensitivities. Dare we guess: Are you male? I shudder to imagine what you might think of the new campaign , organized by a successful pro-HRC woman voter in Columbus, OH, to pull together all the pro-Hillary supporters to work AGAINST Obama in the general? Btw, the woman is a fed-up, annoyed, p.o.'ed, LIFELONG DEMOCRATIC VOTER, as am I. (She is mentioned in the New York Times article, not that you read it...) You guys had better wake up & realize the damage that BO's elitist arrogance & sexism have done, are doing, and will do, to our party. Before yet another Republican is elected to The White House.

just as Jack the Rainman Dallas has posted for years. His recent critically timed endorsement was a slick major P.R. move & coup -- there was only minimal backlash, that I noticed, in the media. WHY? Because of all the reasons we've all been writing about for months -- the media going so ga-ga over Mr. Inexperienced, the sexism displayed towards HRC, the hypnotic effect of Mr. Big Ears Obama (who puts me to sleep, actually) and so on. I have no respect at all left for John Edwards, not that I ever had much !

Lunesta:

Um, yeah, I read the entire article. I was quoting the Hillary supporters, not the NYT. But as usual, you interpreted it to be what you wanted to see.

It's the same old tripe with you. All you do is condescend and call Obama supporters crazy/sexist while claiming to be the victim

"effectively captured the other day on one of the major network news programs.."

I'd like to see this.

"...the new campaign , organized by a successful pro-HRC woman voter in Columbus, OH, to pull together all the pro-Hillary supporters to work AGAINST Obama in the general? Btw, the woman is a fed-up, annoyed, p.o.'ed, LIFELONG DEMOCRATIC VOTER, as am I. (She is mentioned in the New York Times article, not that you read it...) You guys had better wake up & realize the damage that BO's elitist arrogance & sexism have done, are doing, and will do, to our party. Before yet another Republican is elected to The White House."

Lifelong Democrats, and you're going to vote against the party out of spite? Mature.

Yes, I do,FOJ. It really is about the girls and also the fact that I have a real strong sense that Hillary would do wonders to bring the country back into some good working order and also knows how to handle the Military and has deep understanding about all of the issues.

But on the 'girls' factor and if it really matters to me..oh, yes, it sure does. Deeply matters to me.

Cute story to maybe illustrate it a bit: I have an adorable beautiful 14 year old grand daughter who lives in New York with my daughter, in my home town of birth.

And recently my own mother related to me how she was over at her house and the little neighbor boy came by and they got into discussing the election in passing, like kids do. the boy said he wanted Obama and my grand daughter said,"uh uh" "Not this time', And the boy said,' why not?' And she said,"It's not his turn.'It's Hillary's turn".

It just was so sweet and warmed my heart so. This was a few months back when there was a thin ray of hope for Clinton.

I know what that feeling is behind her cute remarks.Because I am a woman.

I know.

If you're not a woman I can't explain it better but to say it's a brave little face that really doesn't quite believe it could ever happen that the big guys will ever let 'girls' be truly equal but you're going to put on your assertive, litttle, brave face and stand up and say, she can do it anyway.

It does matter to me that my grand daughter believes she can be as equal intellectually to any man and be given that respect without patronization or abuse for expressing her own intelligence .

I am just glad that today a woman actually did get as far as HRC did and she really did have a genuine chance.

That's good.

That's very good.

As far as Obama..I would have voted for him early on. The Wright thing changed all that.

As far as the Michelle issue goes ..I was impressed by jegal's remarking on it because I too had thought something along the same lines as she did, but from a different angle and way of looking at his choice of a wife.So it struck me as interesting that she mentioned that factor.

I am addicted to analyzing things and situations to the 'nth degree. But this is a complex issue that I will try and get back to you on and write more about at another time.Have too much going on here today.

But,basically the my take on it has more to do with his own words about his upbringing and his 'white grandmother" and his choice of pastor and his use of the words'bitter' to describe white blue collar types. Often when people use certain words to describe others it is really a projection of their own very flawed selves they actually reveal.

Anyway for many reasons, Obama and his wife do not fill me with a sense that they are without large areas a deep bitterness and hidden resentments.

That bothers me. Call it a 'gut check'.

The more I learn about him the less I feel comfortable about him.

And I really liked him on first blush. That changed.

Thx for your interesting reply though.

Hi Lunesta! Yep...on the media again..it's been totally unbelievable!

I never really liked him much anyway.

There's a video of him on YouTube where he was sitting in a chair as his make-up girl was holding a had held mirror up to his face for him and Edwards combs and recombs and recombs and re combs and fusses with his hair for a full 20 minutes. I kid you not!

The poor make-up girl he hand probaly felt like it was going to fall off! lol.

Edwards:What a preening peacock!

Get ready for more of the same tonight. No matter how well HRC does, the media will say down play it to max.

;-)

Davelias12 ,maybe this is a very serious and important issue for Lunesta!

Obviously it is as she has been so strong in advocating for HRC and trying to point out each and every time she sees misogynistic posts or the sometimes very subtle indicators that many people don't even realize they use all the time.

I know it matters to her. It matters greatly.She has the right to express that as often as she wants to.

As far as her not voting for Obama..I know her . She'd vote for Obama just as she voted for Clinton or any other male candidate in the past.

She isn't voting for him because she doesn't think he is competent or experianced enough. Neither do I.