If the media or anyone has been hard on Ms. Clinton it's because of her harsh, tough, unbecoming mannerisms and talk. She has done more to harm women than help. The days of the women's libbers and such are over. She needs to move on. She needed to find a new voice and attitude - a kinder, gentler and more feminine one.

IOW's the ***** deserved it.

Thx for proving the premise of the top post.

Run -- you are wrong on every particular. First, the DNC did require that candidates remove their names. Clinton's position is that the pledge she signed did not specify that. It specified that the candidates "would not compete." The DNC specifically interpreted this to mean that the candidates would remove their names from the ballot if the states allowed. Michigan did so allow; Florida did not. Edwards, Biden, Richardson AND Obama all removed their names -- respecting the DNC's interpretation of the Pledge. Clinton did not -- relying on her own interpretation (familiar Clinton gaming -- remember "I did not have sex with that woman (I got a blowjob and I have an interpretation from a Baptist minister that blowjobs are not 'sex'").

But, this begs the question, if the candidates were not required to remove their names from the Michigan ballot, why did all the major candidates other than Clinton do so. They wouldn't have if they were not required to do so. Clinton is just being flat out dishonest when she makes the argument that Obama (and the rest) were misinterpreting the rules.

Beathan

Lunesta --

She wants to enfranchise those voters not out of principle, but because they voted for her (or appeared to do so). She is simultaneously seeking to disenfranchise the voters of Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine -- who held caucuses under the rules that did not preserve a record of the "popular vote" -- by arguing that the "popular vote" rather than the delegate count is the metric that mattered,

If a person supports enfranchisement as a principle,she should support enfranchisement of voters who vote against her. Otherwise, we have a soviet style election --"anyone can vote as long as they vote for me."

Beathan

Beathan:

Laurie-Ann --

McCain is on record with regard to the kind of Justices he would appoint. He help up Roberts and Alito as examples of that kind of Justice. This is as pro-life as they come.

It is insane for Feminists to take a chance on McCain. If feminists do so, to spite Obama, then Clinton's campaign will be a complete disaster for women.

Beathan

Sorry, I didn't see this reply Beathan until now.

Yes, I know. I linked a web site called 'Republicans For Choice', the other day where they had listed McCain as their second choice behind Rudy G...before he dropped out.

But even though McCain may well be considered so far left of center by many cons that they even call him a democrat, he isn't as far left as Obama.

He would have to cow tow to that horrible extreme right wing of the GOP.

And they are a group that worries me every bit as much as The Reverend Wright and Farrakhan types do.

So, I do know you have a point on McCain and the possibility he would have to cowtow to the Evangelicals on The Abortion issue..

Apparently the BO-bots can be as nasty over here as they can on other Frays, it seems? Btw, if you need a little fun break, I'm running a Top Post on here with more celebrity endorsements for Obama. Started with ... Paris Hilton. Care to join me? Where is Gatewood today??

:-)

Yeah, we all can be on both sides. I know. I just figure find some way to just discuss the issues of the situation. So tired of all the picking at each other from both sides. I know it can be hard.

Best to you.

Get with the program! Gatewood is not available today, Laurieann only posts as him on Mondays and Wednesdays.

Today is patcgm. tomorrow is ohforgodssakes - saturday is her day for justjoe and I'm thinkin' she'll be in a JeremySwiss mood for Memorial Day.

Have a happy one, btw.

Beathan:

Do you know precisely what happened in Michigan, between Michigan and the DNC or are you believing the mews media. The only ones who broke any agreement is the DNC, Dean, and Brazile.

Davelias12:

If you were accurate, I would leave you alone. It was the 3rd highest primary turnout. Voters were not told the election would not count and they were encouraged to vote. The results do represent the electorate. That Obama chose to take his name off the ballot was his own decision. Even then the electorate was informed that a vote for uncommitted was a vote for Obama/Edwards. The split as poposed by the Michigan DNC reflected the voters will and Obama, the same as many other large states would not and did not receive 50% of the vote.

A fair vote as financed by provate funds was plausible. What made it impossible was the Repub Senate in Michigan that adjourned without considering the measure. Their was no reason for Repubs to vote as Mitt was the overwhelming winner.

Before you come here and talk about Michigan, get your facts in order.

Run75441:

So you're saying that Michigan voters had no idea that their votes were in jeopardy, even though the DNC stripped them of their delegates? And how does voting for "uncommitted" (which encompassed four, not two, candidates) accurately represent your chosen candidate?

"Mr. Obama was referring to Michigan Democrats who requested Republican ballots in the January primary because they were told that the Democratic primary would not count; they would be ineligible to vote again. None of the candidates campaigned in the state, and Mr. Obama and other major contenders asked that their names be removed from the ballot. Mrs. Clinton prevailed by 55 percent to 40 percent over “uncommitted."

<link>

And, Clinton said no to a caucus do-over:

<link>

Ageism, racism, sexism, and all the other mean-spirited -isms flourish in sizable segments of our population, and are directed at all candidates. But only one candidate is crying foul right now, and she's the loser. The late timing of her campaign’s indignance once again makes her position seem more like manipulation and whining than real protest. When a candidate's own campaign dips into the -ism pot, they should be the last ones to cast stones.

The media are of course no more above slurs than the campaigns. It sells, and those outlets that cater to the red-neck crowd find that it sells big. This explicit pandering is particularly heinous because these media people arguably do it deliberately for effect, whereas most of the -isms out there are culturally in-bred - the offenders arguably don't know any better. If you watch those stations it is your duty to call the advertisers and stations and complain when abuses are heard.

But far more insidious than the explicit slurs are the subtle implicit ones that pass through respectable conversations all the time, small put downs that bite the usually unintentional target but go unnoticed by most others. If this is truly what the NYT were commenting on with regard to sexism, well good luck in fixing that, short of mandatory sensitivity training in the primary grades for a generation or two.

What I would really like to see: the candidates stick up for each other when one is impugned by a stupid remark or slur. Thus if Senator Obama is hit by a public racist remark, Senator Clinton and Senator McCain would jump on the abusers - just slam them. Of course, that won't happen until clean campaigns are a reality. Until then, it's a mean world and none of us are the better for it.

But here’s a thought. Chelsea Clinton has done a masterful job fronting for her parents, and not a mean word heard from her. Maybe the candidates should just turn their campaigns over to their children.

Davelias:

Let me assure you, regardless of what Clinton or Obama said; it was not going past the Michigan Senate. The senate adjourned with no decison and it would have sat their again. In itself, the state is a truly swing state in that the Repubs control the Senate and the House and Governorship are Dem. The Fed Senate is Dem and the Fed House is split equally, which pretty much reflects the make up of Michigan. It can be said the Dems cluster around Ann Arbor and Detroit, while the balance of the state is pretty much conservative and Republican or independent. I am one of the few Dems, and a very minor Dem township official, in one county. And by the way, Michigan does not do caucus. At best, it would have been another primary.

Run:

We are in agreement here. The state screwed the voters; that's what I've been saying.