UPDATED - Alegre's not there yet; do you know why?

by Falsehood, Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:11:58 PM EST

Update [2008-6-9 21:13:5 by Falsehood]: Many of the comments on this diary say that we shouldn't worry about this, because the idea that Obama exploited sex isn't true. While I agree with these people in that I don't see Obama to be at fault, that doesn't mean that others will automatically share my opinion. I hope we can find a way to reach out to those who feel Obama exploited/attacked her sex, because everyone we can reach is another supporter for the General Election. This isn't about who is right - it's about giving Obama the best support we can.

Alegre posted a diary entitled "Sorry Gang - I'm Just Not There Yet," at the "Hillary's Bloggers" site near midnight on Saturday.

She said, in part:

I just can't do it - not yet. I respect Hillary more than words can say and I know she did what she had to do today. I was there to hear her speak and found myself cheering wildly every time she paused to catch her breath, until she got to the part where she asked us to join her in her fight to help elect Obama as our next president.

Then I stood there silent, with my hands folded politely in front of me.

I'm not saying I won't ever get there as far as voting for the guy goes. At this point BO might (might) get my vote in November if he ends up being our nominee. But he's going to have to work damn hard to win my vote after the way he lied about Hillary, and remained silent as the media and even his own supporters and staff attacked her with some of the most bizarre and misogynistic load of garbage I've ever heard.

Embedded in the post was this video that I couldn't even finish the first time through:

I didn't think I really got it until today.

Until today, I thought Clinton supporters were overreacting to fair attacks and criticisms. Instead, they were under-reacting to the unfair, horrible attacks.

This video is horrible.

For Clinton supporters, her defeat means their victory. The man who shouted "Iron my Shirt," the creator of the Hillary nutcracker, and all of the other haters triumphed. Yet more importantly to me, the problem is that these people feel Barack Obama stepped back and let it happen.

They think he stepped back, and let them call Bill Clinton a racist. They think he stepped back, and let them call her a b** and c***. When they see the overwhelming celebration over the first black nominee and his historic rise, they see a spotlight that was stolen from a woman who worked twice as hard.

And they are angry.

I didn't truly understand that until this hour, and I am deeply, deeply, sorry. Please know that my support for is unchanged; even as I learn about why some despise him, I think he acted appropriately (with the few inevitable slip-ups - you're "likable enough.")

I don't know if I or we can fix this, but we can certainly keep it from getting worse. Alegre isn't the same as the folks over at Hillaryis44, and we should never accuse her or others like her of being so. Please don't exacerbate this polarization.

I don't think the sexists won here, though. This was the Democratic primary - of the party of Clinton in the 90s, and while I think the party did move away from her, as seen in the election of Dean to Chair, I don't think it was because of the sexists or hatred.

I really, honestly, truly, don't.

Because for me, Clinton's candidacy was tarnished not by who she was, but the things I saw her do, just as Obama's candidacy was tarnished for some because of what he DID NOT do. I don't know if he could have done better.

If he had reached out and defended her, would he have been attacked for not letting her stand up for herself, and for "protecting" her? Did she stand up against the Muslim rumors in the same way?

These are the reasons why I don't agree with Alegre, though I do not intend to attack her or call her out in any way with this diary. Yet I feel I understand where she is coming from much better than I did yesterday.

That's doesn't mean I know how to fix it. If you have ideas, I'd love to hear them.

Update [2008-6-9 14:34:9 by Falsehood]: Though I'm enjoying the robust discussion of which side was at fault of what, I'd really like to hear some ideas on how Obama and his supporters (myself included) can show that this sexism was reprehensible. To be clear - no sides' hands are clean, and debating who was deeper in the mud won't help us get up out of it.


Tags: Alegre, Unity, Obama, Clinton (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 403 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 13)

Well you could start by stop the lie about "Did she stand up against the Muslim rumors in the same way?".  In fact she did defend him against the muslin rumors and then she got smeared when her words were twisted.  Look at the whole quote some time.

david


by giusd on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:17:00 PM EST

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 1)

"As far as I know" -- Clinton.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Less than one second. (2.00 / 12)

Media Matters:

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

Lots of eager, tsk-tsking pundits and reporters agreed. They said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying. Even more peculiar was Kroft's obsession with the Muslim question amid a 60 Minutes report that was about Ohio's shrinking working class and what Clinton and Obama were going to do to try stop of the overseas flow of U.S. manufacturing jobs. (Note to Kroft and the rest of the media: Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton knows Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton does not believe Obama is a Muslim. Clinton made this very clear.)


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (1.75 / 4)

I think their interpretation is off. Sure, she denied it. But she also said "so far as I know" which left the door open to people thinking that she wasn't sure if it was absolutely clear if Obama is a Muslim.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spoken like a true political hack!! (1.66 / 9)


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (1.87 / 8)

It's clowns like you who want to perpetuate this bs about Clinton that's the product of people like Matthews who make me start thinking about whether I want to support someone who is supported by such jerks. Why don't you just shut up and it will be much better for your guy.    


by ottovbvs on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Correction (1.50 / 2)

"Why don't you just shut up and it will be much better for your guy."

FYI if you are a democrat he is YOUR guy now too..... like it or not. now you can grow up and face the facts because tantrums don't work for children and it won't work for you    


PUMA: Particularly Undeveloped Mental Ability
by wellinformed on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (1.00 / 1)

Then vote for someone else.  Or don't vote.  But stop this bullshit blackmail of "You guys better be nice or I won't vote for Obama."  Then don't.  I call your bluff.  If you are a real Democrat, you'll choose Obama over McCain.  If you aren't a real Democrat, you aren't going to vote for Obama anyway.  Your choice.  


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (none / 0)

I think playing the victim now is a set back for women.  


by ImpeachBushCheney on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (2.00 / 1)

Real Democrats not only vote for the democratic nominee, they also show respect to  people that are hurting because they just lost something very valuable to them.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (2.00 / 1)

good point, politicsmatters has always done that and has always been a troll


by zerosumgame on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:52:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (none / 0)

The video is certainly powerful. It brilliantly illustrates the disgusting sexism that exists in our society and how it manifests itself openly more often than we all may realize. Racism is overt is some places, but largely has become an underground, highly encoded endeavor that manifests in the cracks of society. Both are alive and well. Both must be fought with equal vigor and seriousness.

In my opinion, one is inseparable from the other. The sexism or racism that came out from either of these campaigns against one another was unfortunate, but I don't believe that either individual or the efforts of their campaign staffs were in any way institutionally racist or sexist. Both camps could have handled things better, and it shows that we are all, not matter how open-minded and progressive, capable of crossing the line.

What makes no sense to me, whatsoever, is blaming Obama for the shit you saw in that video. In fact, the most overt example of support for sexism was when McCain agreed with the person at his town hall who asked how we are going to beat the b*tch. Facing reality and digging into the real, honest to goodness substance of this election the choice is clear. Voting Democrat will crack the door wide open for a progressive agenda that will help women, African-Americans, Native Americans, Americans of all stripes, and hopefully create a fairer society.

Obama isn't a sexist anymore than your fathers, brothers, or husbands. He probably misses some of the important things that women feel because he's a man. His intentions are in the right place. His policies are in the right place. His actions are in the right place. His words probably need education from time to time. The same goes for the race issue when it comes to Clinton people, and frankly from people in his own campaign. ALL of us need to make personal progress.

Sitting out this election, or voting McCain just isn't smart. In fact, it's stupid. Alegre may or may not be a smart, well-intentioned person. I don't know her. I know her diaries. She lost sight of the big picture in her support of Hillary Clinton.

Most of the people who supported Obama, chose to do so because they either want change and a break from the Clinton leadership that the party has seen for a generation. Or, they opposed Hillary over substance. Policy. Associations. "Crashing the Gates" was written by Kos and Jerome and spelled out the NetRoots commitment to a particular strategy. Clinton is one of the people holding on to the old, failed way of running the party. She's a tremendous individual and a visionary about a lot of things. Her ties to the failed party structure are one of the main reasons why I didn't support her.

I think you'll find that 99% of Obama supporters feel the same as I do. I would have worked to the death to elect her if she won the nomination via the rules. The pledged delegates majority, plus supers as the case turned out. Her devotion to people like Mark Penn, who didn't even know that California wasn't winner take all doomed her, and allowed Obama to show another approach to campaigning and leadership that turned on a lot of people. That's a great outcome. Hillary lost, but the Democrats won. The personal outcome for a lot of people didn't end up the way they would have liked, but I think there's an opportunity to craft our party the way we want it, including the women's agenda. Clinton will still play a major role in that progressive vision.

I understand that YouTube clip and it hurts me as well. Cutting off our nose to spite our face solves nothing and I don't quite understand people who would do it.


by mikeplugh on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (2.00 / 11)

read my post lower down where the full bit of that interview is posted.

it isn't a "sure, she denied it".  She denied it 8 times before giving the WTF else do YOU want me to say moment.

You are just spreading the BS that was seeded from this one soundbite, instead of watching it fully.


by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:55:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (2.00 / 2)

And you have never said HRC is a liar.  Whatever.

david


by giusd on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (2.00 / 1)

jeez, that was the frikking point of asking her time and time again!

They deliberately kept asking her again and again to make her say anything that would add a qualifier, so that they then could claim their gotcha.

If you have to leave out dozens of clear statements contradictory in the same quote to get that gotcha something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Within the context is abundantly that she doesn't think that. The gotcha only works when used as a single line. But that's intellectually dishonest.

The news deliberately went with that because it would push ratings. And then people can say things like "sure she denied it, but" But what? but when pushed several times she said a single qualifier that only gains it meaning through constant contextless repetition and spurious editing?

It was a manufactured controversy. It's what the media does, and what we as the blogs should be fighting against, or at least not buy into it just because it would make such a fine attack that it would be a waste to not to belief it.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (2.00 / 4)

She said "No, no" in response to the first question.

After he asked again, she said "There's nothing to base that on.. as far as I know."

So the "as far as I know" was NOT in relation to Obama being a Muslim.  It was in relation to there being nothing to base that on.

This is silly.  


by leisure on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (1.50 / 2)

Why would you say "so far as I know" in relation to whether there's anything to base it on?

And, frankly, I don't think this is a big deal. If Clinton would have won the nomination, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (2.00 / 3)

If you don't think it's a big deal, then why do you insist on perpetuating a clearly dishonest meme?  It is as plain as the nose on your face that she denied that he was a Muslim multiple times before finally saying 'as far as I know,' and yet that's the ONLY part you choose to repeat.


by slynch on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (1.00 / 1)

Some of us Obama supporters are a bit defensive after all the harping on the "likable enough" comment (which was a slip up that was, at worst, on the same level as her "as far as I know) and the ridiculous finger-gate bullshit.  Sorry that we are a bit angry also.  Hillary supporters don't have the market cornered on anger.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (2.00 / 1)

Reality check. Our guy won, their gal lost.

The only thing worse then a sore loser is a sore winner. If you are still angry now that you won, you are in dire need of some perspective.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:06:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (none / 0)

No, I am angry that Hillary supporters pretend like Obama is the only one with dirty hands after this primary.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Less than one second. (2.00 / 1)

I think she was surprised that he asked twice... and started questioning in her own mind whether there was some piece of "evidence" that he knew about which she didn't.

And so she said, "There's nothing to base that on... as far as I know."

This was only after she clearly said "No", when asked if Obama was a Muslim.

Make sense?


by leisure on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Googling... (none / 0)

Googling "Obama Hillary New Hampshire", this comes up.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2007/12/hillary_campaign_acknowl edges_that_hillary_backer_passed_along_o bama_madrassa_email.php

Hillary Campaign Acknowledges That County Chair Backing Hillary Passed Along Obama Muslim Smear Email
By Greg Sargent - December 5, 2007, 1:31PM

There were other incidents like this.  I was looking for the New Hampshire one, but, hey, yeah, there was the Iowa one, too, and many reports of canvassers doing the same thing.

Was Hillary Clinton directly responsible for this?  I sincerely doubt it, but there is a slim possibility because politics can be just that dirty.  Regardless, though, this is the kind of things people CLOSE to the Clintons were doing because they thought it would help their candidate.

It's much sillier to tar Obama for some dick in the audience waving an "Iron My Shirt" sign than it is to take umbrage at this.


by Dumbo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Googling... (2.00 / 1)

Just to make it clear for anyone who does not know, the "Iron My Shirt" guys are Boston-area radio DJs.  They were on paid time when they wore the shirts.  It was a radio shock jock ploy, nothing more.  It was not some secret evidence that all Obama supporters are sexists.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Googling... (2.00 / 1)

Personally I don't think that Clinton supporters faulted Obama for the shock jocks, I think they faulted some of the Obama supporters for saying stuff like

"It was a radio shock jock ploy, nothing more."

It was a blatantly sexist ploy, and comments downplaying such events wouldn't exactly inspire friendly feelings amongst the people who were disgusted by it.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Googling... (none / 0)

I think everyone thought it was disgusting. But a good many Clinton supporters apparently thought that it was not only disgusting but then blamed Obama directly for the actions of a couple shock jocks. I, for one, thought the best course of action would be to totally ignore it in the hope that the publicity stunt wouldn't work.


by Geiiga on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:05:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Googling... (none / 0)

Hanging the "shock jocks" up by their genitals would have been good too.

(and I'm an Obama supporter)


by Bush Bites on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Googling... (none / 0)

You've got two different points in your commen:

But a good many Clinton supporters apparently thought that it was not only disgusting but then blamed Obama directly for the actions of a couple shock jocks.

I think that is an example of perception bias,  that the very few Clinton supporters who thought so have made a larger impression in your perception then warrented according to their numbers. I've seen maybe half a dozen Clinton supporters express that opinion tops. It was more a case of having a single commenter leaving dozens of comments. Which makes it seem a more widespread then it is.

I think everyone thought it was disgusting. <..> I, for one, thought the best course of action would be to totally ignore it in the hope that the publicity stunt wouldn't work.

Normally most democrats firmly denounce such actions. The fact that so many Obama supporters either though it best to ignore it, or actively downplayed it made a lot of Clinton people feel like such sexist was not condemned by and even tactically supported by some of the Obama supporters. Surely you can see that the appearence was unfortuneatly.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Googling... (none / 0)

I think the difference is that Obama supporters (who are more likely to be young) see that both sexism and racism have slowly started to fade.  Neither will ever go away fully, and there is still a long way to go.  But many of us realize that jumping up and pointing out every instances of racism and sexism and saying "There's one!  That's bad!" is not the best way to deal with it.

There was a good article in this week's Time (by Joe Klein I think?) about pessimistic feminists who think women are as bad off as they were 30 years ago and optimistic feminists who see things changing.  The pessimists voted for Hillary; the optimists voted for Obama.


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Googling... (2.00 / 0)

so that makes it OK how again?


by trytobereal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Googling... (none / 0)

No one ever said it's ok.  It was ridiculously sexist.  And it should remind us of the impact of the MSM (not that these guys were really mainstream).  But let's not pretend that these guys were even "real" people expressing their personal beliefs.  Not only were they not Obama supporters somehow being sexist.  Not only were they not regular joes illustrating the willingness of men to be outrightly and blatantly sexist.  They were radio shock jocks not expressing their own personal views.  They were trying to be as outrageous as possible to get ratings.  Not unlike Rush Limbaugh.  So let's not pretend like that event somehow illuminated the secret world of women-hating men, because I call bullshit.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:37:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 3)

I've seen the whole clip. Obama didn't say Clinton was a racist either, that doesn't keep people from being angry at his for not doing so.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

and Jesse Jackson, Jr, in addition to saying she didn't cry over Katrina, also mentions her not crying over the Iraq war veterans and other people as well. But for Clinton supporters who want to twist it, he said that she doesn't care about black people. He didn't (not that his argument wasn't specious, it was, but for different reasons).


by vadasz on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She says why (none / 0)

right here.  She's hoping apparently that Hillary will wrest the nomination from Obama.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama-Biden '08!
by Beltway Dem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She says why (none / 0)

She's hoping supers will spontaneously realize their dreadful mistake. I'm not too worried about that happening.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:25:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, (none / 0)

I was incredibly in touch with her during the course of the campaign.  She was so committed to a Democratic victory in the fall.  I feel some disappointment that she didn't follow through on what she was saying on a regular and consistent basis throughout the campaign.  I was talking about McCain and sitting it out; she always told me I had to go with the party.  Here I am with the Party, and I miss her.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama-Biden '08!
by Beltway Dem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:39:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 6)

That's not all of it. Alegre posted on a diary yesterday and her point was that the DNC stole the nomination.  And that's an absurdity.  The rules and bylaws committee decision didn't change anything fundamental in the delegate count. And the superdelegates ratified the winner of the pledged delegates, just as had been predicted for months on end.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST

Chuck Todd sort of agrees (2.00 / 2)

yesterday he said Pelosi and Dean were against Clinton.


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck Todd sort of agrees (2.00 / 3)

What Pelosi and Dean were against was having the winner of pledged delegates not get the nomination. They were very clear about that a long time ago, but Clinton kept giving her supporters the impression that this wasn't in fact important to superdelegates. Clinton led her supporters on and created a lot of anger that is now in evidence. If she had been honest with them, we'd be in a different place today.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Todd said it was more than that (2.00 / 2)

He said that there was a large number in the Democratic party that were for the "not Clinton" candidate.  

I don't really find that hard to believe;  the Clintons made a lot of enemies in their time, and that wasn't limited to the Republicans.  The 2005 change of power from DNC chair McAluffe to Dean and 2006's Democratic revival made it clear that their style of politics was faling out of favor from the Democratic party.  


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd said it was more than that (2.00 / 3)

Overturning the pledged delegates would have been hugely controversial and hard to defend. So, why do that at all, particularly for someone who had made some in the party quite unhappy. A lot of party leaders weren't happy that they had had to defend Bill Clinton when he got into trouble with misleading a grand jury about his sex life.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:46:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't get me wrong... (2.00 / 1)

I'm not saying that Obama didn't win it fair and square.  Quite the opposite; like every other part of the primary, he took advantage of favorable elements.

The DNC wanted a good candidate who wasn't a Clinton.  Obama gave one to them.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't get me wrong... (2.00 / 2)

I see it differently. On the one hand, it is possible that she got tagged by Dean and Pelosi due to her membership in the DLC, the group that they had worked to wrest control from. More probably, however, I think the issue was the rules themselves: how they were formed, and how they were treated.

Clinton supporters held a clear plurality on the RBC when they unanimously voted to strip Michigan of its delegates (with the exception of one Obama supporter from Florida). Thus, they had an equal hand in creating the rules, and Clinton was long believed to be the obvious beneficiary of the front-loaded primary schedule. However, when Clinton refused to have her name removed from the Michigan ballot, that raised many red flags in the DNC. Even though her surrogates had an equal hand in passing down the sentence, she was leaving herself wiggle room to secure an unfair advantage. She basically hung the DNC out to try by making the rules, claiming that Michigan's primary wouldn't count, and then changing course and saying it did. She made the DNC look like the bad guy, and you can hear lots of ardent Clinton supporters at other sites (TalkLeft comes to mind) declaring that they no longer consider themselves Democrats.

My view is that Clinton set up the DNC, not vice versa.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was a power struggle (none / 0)

There were stories earlier in the year about Bill Clinton going to meet with Karl Rove in 2007 that always fostered some paranoia; it's not hard to believe that he was looking for tips to beat the non-DLC wing of the party.

I'm not going to say that one side "set up" the other when it was pretty clearly a shadow war on both sides.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:44:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd said it was more than that (none / 0)

Thank you Donna Brazile.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:54:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd said it was more than that (2.00 / 2)

So many here make it sound like Pelosi, Dean and other Democratic politicians who weren't openly holding Hillary's hands were actively against her. Or that even if they were actively against her, that would -- somehow -- be wrong.

It's called a democracy and a party. The people complaining about the DNC "taking" it from Hillary were the same ones PRAYING that the DNC and the superdels would TAKE it from Obama, since Hillary was obviously the strongest candidate, etc. etc.

Damned if they did, damned if they didn't, damned if anything other than the Planned Clinton Convention of 2008 didn't take place in Denver.

Sorry it didn't work out that way, but who cares now. Time to move on. If I hear one more complaint about the 'vast left-wing conspriacy' I'm seriously going to start mailing some scripts for lithium out there...


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't blame me, it was Chucky T (2.00 / 1)

That was Todd's report, not mine.  I think that it wasn't a conspiracy; it was more that they weren't sold on Clinton from the starting gun, and the "inevitability" armor essentially cracked as soon as she displayed weakness.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't blame me, it was Chucky T (none / 0)

No blaming, just ranting on the existance of the line of thought. Sorry!


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:48:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it's Dean who is responsible because (none / 0)

of his allegeance to MoveOn.

I was getting begging letters from the DNC and Obama even though I haven't contributed one red cent to them since Bush's first state of the union address when I saw Kennedy literally hugging him thus legitimizing him. I found that unacceptable! The only people I have given to their campaigns since then was Dean and Clinton - so the only way they got my email and physical address was through Dean. It was payback to MoveOn from his great internet success when he ran. There is no doubt that Obama was the DNC's favorite - Clinton had an extremely hard climb to the nomination simply by the fact that polls after polls showed that it was harder for a woman to be elected than an AA.


by suzieg on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd said it was more than that (2.00 / 3)

The reasons for "Not Clinton" depend.

I was "Not Clinton," to some degree, but only because I feared a general election campaign with her as the nominee. I have confidence in her ability as a possible President someday.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was "not clinton" because of the war. (none / 0)

I think that's why most "not Clinton" people in the blogosphere were "not Clinton."  The sexist thing was mostly a product of the wingnuts and the low-information voters that vote based on "gut feeling," about whose character they like.  That
"gut feeling" thing becomes an easy excuse for sexism OR racism.

Hillary lost this because of the war.  I feel sorry for her that she was the victim of any sexist attacks, and I am sure most Hillary supporters are equally sorry that Obama was the victim of racism or religious smears.  But the issues really did count in this campaign.


by Dumbo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chuck Todd sort of agrees (none / 0)

I don't agree. It was very clear from the start that superdelegates were here 'just in case'. That they were going to endorse the candidate leading in pledged delegates - unless there was a huge problem with that candidate.

Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign started to try and confuse this issue so soon as it became clear Hillary was unlikely to obtain a majority of pledged delegates. They devised the strange concept of 'automatic delegates' Hillary even floated the idea that pledged delegates were actually free to vote the way they liked.

But things had always been clear from the start and supers wentto the candidate with pledged delegates. And the people in charge could advocate no other course than that, as clearly both candidates were excellent.

by french imp on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet. (2.00 / 1)

Alegre is welcome to be part of all of us who now support Obama, many of whom supported other candidates.  In the end, it is up to her.  It may take some time.  We have plenty of that.  I think she will come around in the end.  


by TomP on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

We have an opponent and it isn't us.  His name is John McCain.


by niksder on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 1)

What are you doing? Is this a campaign against Alegre?


by soyousay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:18:15 PM EST

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 2)

Personally I don't wait on my tippy toes to see who blogs around here. If someone wants to show up, cool. If not, also cool.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 3)

Alegre isn't running for office.


by soyousay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (1.00 / 1)

But she ran a long scam on this site.

Isn't bundling illegal according to the FEC?


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 3)

I don't know what you're talking about.


by soyousay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure that's correct (2.00 / 1)

She always linked directly to the Clinton donation page, did she not?  

A bundler would want to retain some sort of credit for the donations, wouldn't she?

I have no idea what alegre's moral code allows, but I seem to recall her links going directly to the Clinton website.  That suggests that she's not a big time money bundler.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:41:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure that's correct (1.00 / 3)

I remember the legality being discussed but legality aside what else could it have been, although I do remember bundler was a term people agreed on.

If you asked me what Alegre's motivation in one word was I would have to have said money.

Some of her diaries were based just on that.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My guess? (1.25 / 4)

I think that she's a paid blogger.  The reason we won't hear much from her anymore is because the paychecks stopped coming on friday.

There's a significant difference between a bundler and a paid blogger.  She was hired for her blog formatting skills rather than her fundraising networks.

alegre writes some dang slick diaries with pictures and embedded links and everything.  The quality and quantity of her offerings leads me to believe that she's a professional.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and there are no paid (none / 0)

Obama bloggers here or elsewhere?  It's the times.  Frankly, when so many people who claim to be young are consistently on the blogs during the day and evening, I wonder.  I was always working when I was young - and in school at night.  

It's legitimate - though they should be identified as such.


by Xanthe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:23:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not sure Obama needs paid bloggers (none / 0)

Well, outside of the ones that are up-front about it.

Thing about Obama is that his supporters are largely net-savvy and enthusiastic to share their thoughts and feelings online.  Thus, besides the Obama bloggers that are forewardly obvious about it, I don't think that you'll see paid Obama bloggers around.

I wouldn't read anything into when people are posting.  I work at a full-time job, from which I have some time to post online between tasks.  I expect many are in a similar situation.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't have time when I (2.00 / 1)

was working - or at least the kind of time some of the bloggers I suspect to be Obama paid bloggers seem to have.

But really what is wrong with it?  As long as they're identified as paid blogging.

You're right about being comfortable with the net.  That is a plus -  

Since the Obama campaign has money and can pay bloggers - I certainly suspect there are many such posters - even though he has the nomination now.  I disagree that we haven't and won't see such posters.  But again - so what?


by Xanthe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:44:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and there are no paid (none / 0)

I'm here a lot during the day and at night because I'm full time in grad school and my schedule is crazy.  I imagine there are quite a few like me.  But I'm not paid and I don't really write diaries (just one).  I am a bit obsessed with this website though!


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure that's correct (2.00 / 1)

Good grief. Lots of campaign actions are based on money - fundraising is very important.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One could be paid and still (none / 0)

be a believer, no?  


by Xanthe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure that's correct (none / 0)

Alegre was a Hillraiser.  In this diary she says:

Over the past few weeks I've been stepping up my efforts to raise money for Hillary's campaign via my HillRaisers link, and it's been going pretty well.  The folks here among the Net Roots are incredibly generous and Hillary's got some amazing backers on this and other discussion boards and blogs.  In increments of $10, $20, $50 and even one or two $1,000+ donations, Hillary's online supporters have stepped up to the plate when it counts.  Because of our joint efforts, I've raised just shy of the $20,000 mark and I'm not letting up until she wins this thing in November.

If I understand it correctly, you had to bundle 100k to earn the official "HillRaiser" title though.  


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure that's correct (none / 0)

God DAMN

Thats alot of money.

How cool would it be if you could walk around and brag that you raised ONE HUNDRED THOUSDAND dollars for a campaign.

Thats nuts!

and so is Allegre, but still props to her for bundling/hillrazing whateveryoucalle it 100K dollars......


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure that's correct (none / 0)

I don't think sending supporters to donate is "Bundling."

I see bundling as using your own connections to secure lots of larger donations (like in a law firm.) That's an impression, I'm no expert.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:42:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure that's correct (none / 0)

The diary that I linked wasn't all that old, and she was at that point hoping to break $20k.  I don't think she got anywhere near the $100k mark.  Still, $20k-ish is nothing to scoff at.

Being part of the HillRaisers network is probably what gave her access to all the "conference calls" she spoke about, in addition to providing a direct conduit for campaign spin and talking points (e.g. sourcing HillaryHub endlessly).

Ironically, the whole HillRaisers thing is based on the Rove tactic employed for Bush.  Remember the Pioneers and Rangers bundlers?  Check out this Politico story on it.

The president's Pioneers and Rangers, bundlers who generated $100,000 and $200,000, respectively, have now been replaced by Hillraisers, bundlers who are hoping to raise as much as $1 million for Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure that's correct (2.00 / 1)

Crazy.

I didn't know much about the Hillraisers.

The very name gives me shudders, though.  I keep expecting Pinhead to come out of some magic box that Clinton keeps.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure that's correct (none / 0)

Heh.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 1)

Bundling is totally legal, and just because Alegre supported the wrong candidate does not make her advocacy a "scam".


by Adam B on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

Truth amidst the partisan haze, always a good thing.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

Hillary wasn't the "wrong" candidate.
She was the one who lost, that's all.
by skohayes on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

Fair enough.  I would never criticize her for the "sin" of being a determined advocate.


by Adam B on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

Since when is passionate, informed support of a candidate a scam?

As for "bundling" it is totally legal.  If it weren't, Obama would be in a whole lotta trouble.


by Tolstoy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

I never said it was illegal, I had heard that bundling was against FEC rules.

My use of the word SCAM:

Alegre most certainly scammed this site and the people who I respond to now.

Her only goal was to come here and foment anger against the media, the DNC, and Barack Obama and/or anything that possibly stood in the way and to raise money.

Her plan was not to participate in discussion or discource since I NEVER NEVER NEVER saw her do that even once, not with supporters of either side.

She scammed this site badly, but in the end she helped pay the bills.
Im sure the admin is sorry to see her go.

Just funny how these "untouchables" came in and destroyed this site and made it the laughing stock of the progressive blogosphere,

then they totally bounce and leave you here to defend them.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 1)

She participated with her diaries. No, I didn't see her in a big back-and-forth, but that's not for everyone, and no reason to jump on her.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

I think many of her diaries were absolutely ludicrous.  But since I think she actually believed everything she wrote, I wouldn't call it a scam.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 4)

Not at all. This is trying to say that I think I better understand what's so difficult about this for some.

The fact that I disagree with her doesn't mean I can't respect her position.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 1)

Great. So why not refer to Clinton supporters in general rather than singling out one person? Apparently, she bugs the hell out of you.


by soyousay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 3)

well, she bugged the hell out of me. I think she has intellectual integrity problems which makes me not all that interested in reconciling with her, or bring her into the fold.


by Metrobot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

Well, it was her post with that video that changed my opinion, and I know she's of prominence here, so I thought her post there was worth sharing here.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

What's your problem with Falsehood's diary? It was very nice to Alegre. I really don't see what's wrong with it.
by french imp on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 2)

Yes. The diary which attempts to empathize with and understand Clinton supporters is an attack on Alegre.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 1)

These's no reason to single out one person.


by soyousay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

There's no reason not to, either, especially one as prolific as Alegre (was).



McCain
by Black Anus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

You're talking about the person who until recently often controlled 60% of the reclist on this site (ie 3 diaries on it at once). Alegre is relevant as an individual. She's more than just a regular Hillary supporter to the MyDD community.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (1.50 / 6)

I am actually really offended by Alegre, why did she leave this site all of a sudden?

It was true, she was just a bundler using this site.

I might be cynical, but that is ALL the credit I give her.

A cowardly bundler dressed as a blogger, a blogger who never had any discussions and used misogynistic language against men AND women repeatedly.

TexasDarling is a POS too,  she is rolling around with her Coprophagic buddies at noquarter.com looking for the next way to destroy the Democratic party.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

What are you doing on noquarter? :D

Didn't she post an old commercial of Meeks endorsing Obama? It's pretty tough stuff but it was an ad that Obama put out.


by soyousay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

I went to NQ looking for Alegre, I missed her, well I didn't, was just dying to hear what she would say.

I didn't expect her to cross to the dark side, but I am totally not surprised.

I am curious how NoQuarter stacks against the "republican blogs" as far as views.
I know they are running weak, so it would be funny Larry Johnson beat them at their own game.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (2.00 / 1)

Damnit, no props for the use of the word "Coprophagic" when referring to Larry Johnson in my diary?

Man I had to look that up on Wikipedia!  gimme mojo!


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

|
| (the line)          -----> YOU
|
by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:25:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre's not there yet; do you know why? (none / 0)

Hey you DID rec the stand for alegre right?


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please (2.00 / 4)

Those idiot sexist chanters were part of a radio station stunt; they were not supporters of Obama or any other candidate.


by Adam B on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST

Re: Please (2.00 / 1)

Of course. And the campaign didn't say anything sexist at any point.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please (none / 0)

I agree; yet there's still a feeling that it was his responsibility to speak out. I don't think he needed to do so, but I understand why some might think that.


by Falsehood on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please (2.00 / 1)

Well, I don't understand why anyone would think that. I didn't expect Hillary Clinton to speak out against attacks against Obama.  It's up to the candidate and her or his campaign to stick up for themselves. That's how it always has been.

It's a double standard to expect people to speak out on behalf of Hillary Clinton when no one has ever done that before for a candidate during the nomination contest.  Why would anyone expect that she be treated differently than any other candidate? I sure hope it's not because she's a woman because that would be a sexist, Victorian standard.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please (2.00 / 2)

Didn't Clinton speak out to defend Obama when Bush made his comments in Israel?  In fact I remember the howling of a few people here about the fact that it took her 8 hours to speak up.


by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please (none / 0)

Yeah that was after NC and IN.  The tone of her campaign was different after that, she pretty much stopped attacking him after seeing the writing on the wall.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For the record. (none / 0)

Bush's speech before the Knesset was an attack on all of his political opponents.  They were especially focussed on Obama, as Bush's aides admitted, but they could have easily been read as an attack on Clinton as well.

I wasn't someone who was howling.  I was glad that she did respond.  However, I don't think her speaking out against that is very comparable to what we are talking about here.  It was a defense of the Democratic party more than it was a defense of Obama specifically.

I remember some howling here myself (some by people who are posting in this very thread), but it was about how Bush never mentioned Obama by name.  Therefore Obama was "jumping the gun" or some nonsense.
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/16/1 6229/8619/88#88


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, but Hillary was obligated to determine whether (2.00 / 3)

Obama is or is not a muslim?


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?