Do you think an essay like this does anything but confirm the absolute disregard the Democratic Party showed women after the closed door DNC Rules & ByLaws committee selected Senator Obama on May 31, 2008?

The Democratic party died for me that day.

I voted for Senator Clinton. I contributed money to her campaign. I made calls and I volunteered. The scales dropped from my eyes on May 31,2008. It seems the Democrats have always thought of the women among you as harridans.

I am contributing to and voting for Ralph Nader.

Why would you say the nomination was handed to Obama? They followed DNC rules. Superdelegates are a part of the deal. Even Hillary said Florida's and Michigan's votes shouldn't be counted...well, before she changed her mind, of course.

For my part, I don't like the way Democrats select their candidates. But it is what it is, until folks decide to change it.

Grace Marie:

Do you think an essay like this does anything but confirm the absolute disregard the Democratic Party showed women after the closed door DNC Rules & ByLaws committee selected Senator Obama on May 31, 2008?

The Democratic party died for me that day.

I voted for Senator Clinton. I contributed money to her campaign. I made calls and I volunteered. The scales dropped from my eyes on May 31,2008. It seems the Democrats have always thought of the women among you as harridans.

I am contributing to and voting for Ralph Nader.

Even though just about every single womens' organization has given Obama a near perfect record on voting in favor of womens' rights, and McCain a zero. This kind of logic baffles me--because it's illogical. It's akin to saying that the slaughterhouse has the cow's best interest at heart.

Why did the scales fall from your eyes? Because the DNC did what it said it was going to do all along? Had the roles been reversed, would the Democratic party still have died that day?

Grace Marie, you are delusional. I won't rehash the very valid points listed by the previous posters, but I will add that at that meeting there were plenty of women at the table. If you really think the Dems are a woman hating organization, you'd think at least one of those highly educated, powerful women would've said something by now.

Go ahead and vote for Nader, he's got just as much chance of being President as HRC.

Oh please. You can't have it both ways lady (and I am a woman so don't go getting all offended by me calling you a lady). Hillary like the rules just fine when she thought she was going to win. She like the Super delegates when she thought she had them in her pocket. She knew ahead of time that Florida and Michigan didn't count because they were being punished for holding their primaries early without DNC permission. She was only pushing so hard to have them re-instated AFTER she realized she would need them if she wanted to win. The DNC doesn't hate women...more like the GOP does with their Roe vs. Wade obsession and not wanting equal pay for women. Remember...what's good for the goose is good for the gander. None of yal had a problem with the DNC until she lost the nomination. I find it ironic that you guys (oh excuse me...women) would start acting like men. Just because things didn't go your way you now don't want to play anymore and to take your toys and go. Really mature, womanly behavior.

Do you think an essay like this does anything but confirm the absolute disregard the Democratic Party showed women after the closed door DNC Rules & ByLaws committee selected Senator Obama on May 31, 2008?

Actually, I don't. I think had their genders been reversed, the outcome of the Rules and Bylaws Committee would have been the same. I see little reason to think otherwise.

By the way, I'm not a Clinton supporter, but it has nothing, nothing at all to do with her being a woman. There were plenty of reasons to support her or not support her, and its offensive to imply that democrats who opposed her were all sexist, just as it's offensive to say Democrats who opposed Obama are all racist. These days, most people (though not all) are trying to make their decisions on the person's merits, not their attributes.

Grace Marie, you seriously think the Democratic party "hates women"? Just because the Rules & ByLaws committee, which included many women, in a televised meeting during which many Clinton supporters spoke, followed established party rules and procedures to reach a result that you, personally, don't like?

Wow. That's breathtaking.

The scales are sure falling from *my* eyes in this fray. People like you make feminists look bad. I rather hope you do hitch your wagon to Nader. It's obviously too much to hope that you'll use your vote to help protect women's rights.

Your feelings are hurt.

Women have always had to take a back seat to black males. History is filled with evidence. The Democratic Party just thinks that women have nowhere else to go. Funny thing is suddenly, the Republican Party seems to be very interested in courting the women's votes. Calling out Carly Fiorino to reach out to women was brilliant. Sad to see how Dean and Brazile has allowed their ideology to overcome common sense.

Yeah!! The Republican Party is now, and always has been, supportive of those issues of special interest to women.

Is this when the "Laugh" sign goes on?

"Women have always had to take a back seat to black males. History is filled with evidence."

Can you provide some specific examples, please?

wf3895:

"Women have always had to take a back seat to black males. History is filled with evidence."

Can you provide some specific examples, please?

Well, there were all those black men who owned white woman slaves, and all those black men who passed "Jane Crow" laws that kept white women from voting.

Oh, wait, that was the alternate universe . . . .