Davelias12:

and construing what I said. The Repub Senate has made it impossible to go back and run a primary and for sound political reasons. We now have a swing state which can very easily go Repub in 2008 given the make up of the voters here.

Davelias12:

No one in Michigan told the voters their votes would not count. That Obama/Edwards received 40% of the vote against 55% for Clinton is reflective of voter polls then. It is pretty much reflective of how the big states have voted. By the end of January, the major candidates that mattered were all that was left. If the other candidates had remained, your point would be significant. It was advertised by the DNC with Conyers heading up the charge, that a vote for uncommitted was a vote for Edwards or Obama. As an Edward's supporter, I would have been far happier to see Clinton and Obama drop by the wayside.

Here is a thread that may clarify some of the things, I have been saying:

<link> Public or Private Funded Primary??? + Levins and Dingell's Message to Michigan

This answer is out of order. I lost the post I was preparing for some reason other than myself.

Run:

I'm not sure what your point is, but every source that I've seen says that the voters were aware that their votes would not count, but were encouraged to vote in the hopes of the delegates eventually being sat. But I do not live in Michigan and did not actually vote there.

However, there is no legit reason for the vote to count as is. It was not fair and does not accurately represent the electorate.

Run --

I have read the DNC rules for seating delegates and holding primaries. I read these rules about a year ago, and I have read them several times since then. I have also spoken to my local DNC representatives about these issues -- and have listened to their insider reports about the Rules Committee.

The fact is that the "news media" you are vilifying are not getting this story wrong. Michigan and Florida broke the rules. The rules provide for clear punishments for these rule violations. The DNC imposed those punishments. Michigan and Florida knew these rules -- and these punishments -- before they changed their primaries.

Have you read the rules, or is your sole source of information the Clinton campaign's notoriously deceitful "Fact Hub"?

Beathan

LaurieAnnM,

thank you for an interesting starting point on the "gender issue" as it relates to Clinton's run for nomination. Without going into specifics on personalities and campaigns of Clinton vs Obama, I still want to bring out one point that did not seem to have been discussed in the latest flare up regarding media bias agains Clinton. I can not argue with some facts: sneering and condescending comments of some pundits (and even McCain himself), discussions on her dress code, laughter, neck line of her dress, etc. These were all true facts, and completely unwarranted attacks - no questions about this. But after having seen a discussion the other day on Public TV on the same issue, one thought came to mind: the only other female candidate for nomination (i.e. Christina Ferraro) did not receive nearly as many gender biased criticismsat her time, and was treated rather respectfully by the media. This bring out my point: how much of this gender bias against Hillary Clinton is direct result of her affiliation with Bill Clinton and his escapades before and while in the White House? I venture a guess that had Hillary divorced Bill (after his presidency was over), her position for the nomination might have been much stronger, and she might have treated more respectfully by the media. By standing by her piggish husband through thick and thin, Hillary may have demonstrated family loyalty, but by the same token she may have come across as unscrupulous politician who sacrificed her principles for political gain, as her future political life was heavily premised on Bill's accomplishments. By active (or at least more than passive) involvement in the infamous blue dress scandal (and many other lurid details), Hillary created rather dubious publicity for herself and opened herself to the sort of comments that smell of gender bias. This all boils down to the well accepted fact - there are no more polarizing figures in USA politics than the Clintons!

IAfromPA..wow you bring up such a good point because this seems to be the main running theme of women who are against Hillary Clinton. So, it must have some genuine resonance right or worng in how many women view her.

I read and hear this more than any other criticism that some women just have a very very hard time feeling good about her because she stood by her cheating huisband.

It's almost as if those who feel this way about her feel affronted in a personal way as if had she really 'shown him the door' this somehow would have empowered all of the women in the world to then stand up against any man who cheats ever again.

I understand this feeling.

My own husband now of 21 odd years was a rake and rogue,too.. it was terrible, terrible for me for years, years ago.

I thought it would it kill me, emotionally. But, I knew deep inside him he was avery good good man.

The sexual escapades were a manifestation of his childhood issues and I struggled very very hard with it for years..alternately, at times laying down the law and others outright leaving him.

But in the end, I knew he was worth more than his weaknesses, by far.

And I knew his escapades would diminish in time as life moves along If they did not, I would have left for good.

When I eventually did leave him for awhile, he eventually matured and grew past this problem that he had with cheating etc.

So, for me, I know that it's really a personal choice on an individual basis for a woman to decide whether to kick out a cheating husband or just take him to counseling and lay down some boundaries.

I don't really concern myself all that much with her personal choice of why she stayed with her husband. But my gut suspects it is out of love as well as understanding of his own childhood issues,lack of father figure etc..and as well, the powerful co career goals they share together as well.

I don't know if this helps you at all see how I look at it..but thought it wouldn't hurt to share it.

You absolutely not alone in your feelings about it.

on you, and I've seen it over a period of years, to tell it like it is. Btw, Mr. Marine Veteran, I've had a few poignant, very sweet Memorial Day happenings & reminders already today before the weekend even begins. Hopefully I'll find a bit of time to write them up & maybe post them. What an important, bittersweet 'holiday' this one is. Best as always, "L.'

Give it a break, hon, will you? Gatewood is not Laurie Ann, G'wd is a HE. And he's an old-timer whose orig. name you might recognize, since he is legendary. Btw, he left the Frays about a year and a half, or two, ago and one of the reasons was the "clique-filled BOTF." Sorry, m'dear.

I had hoped he would return for this very eventful election season and to my great delight, he has. Backatcha about the weekend; I've already had three poignant & sweetly serious reminders just today of what this weekend really IS all about, or should be. Who knows, maybe I'll get a poem out of it.

Cheers 2 ya, "L."

Sorry I can't agree with you that Sen. Hillary Clinton should be PUNISHED for the acknowledged misdeeds and lies of her husband. And, as well, I respect her for sticking with her marriage & her husband; not for cynical or practical reasons but because I believe they truly do love each other. The impeachment process was a huge wake-up call for WJC, as was the heart attack. He is not the same philandering guy he was back in the 90s.

I am dismayed every time I read one of these posts with its language about her "sacrificing her principles for political gain" -- why can't you just accept even the possibility that she simply loves the guy? And perhaps, also, didn't want to hurt Chelsea any more than she already had been. And, she is religious and perhaps doesn't really believe in divorce. Yes, you are right: she stood by her husband through thick and thin and isn't that what marriage IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALL ABOUT?? (And of course, had she left him, she would have been criticized equally strongly & nastily, my guess, for leaving.)

As for your quite on-point comments about GERALDINE (not Christine) Ferraro, you're right. Things ARE different now. But I don't ascribe the lack of respect with which the media, some Fraysters & some pundits & Bloggers treat her solely to being HER fault. Rather, I see more widespread distrust of, and dislike for, politicians in general. (To wit, Saturday Night Live skits, could they be more disrespectful?) And us all having put up with & witnessed the BUFFOON Bush JR and his clownish, stupid behaviors for the past seven years, that has probably contributed to this trend. I really worry, and am rather hurt, that so many of the pro-Obama posters are SO so quick to blame just about everything in this campaign season, on Mrs. Clinton.

I am too! And it opened up some very good discussions.

Thank you so much for sending me the editorial,Lunesta!

You do have a knack for coming up with some great ideas for topics of discussion.

After you e-mailed the editorial I also saw on this same NYT's Editorial mentioned on CNN and MSNBC nunerous times this week.

So, it was an editorial the news media ,like you,also picked up on.

Good call.

You must be watching some pretty crappy TV, because I don't know anyone who has inserted her hip-size, makeup or hair in lieu of real political discourse.

I've only seen the comics address her pantsuits, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all. She's the first woman democratic primary-candidate, the first female who had the nomination all but handed to her and was expected to possibly be the next POTUS. Comics reach out to what is accessible and good for an easy laugh. We've never had a president who wears pantsuits. If this was a society who had a tradition, rightly or wrongly, of male-dominated leadership, do you think the comics of America would ignore some facet of the first legit male presidential candidate? Wouldn't they make an easy joke about some male feature that is different from what we have seen?

Lunesta --

I'm sorry that you worry and are hurt when we blame the negative tone and other horrid aspects of this primary on Hillary Clinton. The problem is that, in almost every case, she is to blame. Obama's campaign has been remarkably noble. (Granted -- his friends in the media and his grass-roots supporters (like me) have not been). However, Clinton's campaign has never failed to stoop -- and has been caught at it again and again.

It is a shame that the Feminist cause had such a flawed standard-bearer. Despite that, for all her flaws, Hillary has proven that a woman can go the distance -- and the right woman would have.

Beathan

There is no other explanation, Lunesta. What can we say?

Good post.