MetaChat - YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

I have just been hating the hemming and hawing and political posturing of Hillary in defeat. Obama is the boss of you, b1tch. Get used to it. He calls the shots.

posted by Doohickie 03 June | 20:15

Wow, Doohickie, that's really inappropriate.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 20:16

Get ready for the Barack Attack, yo!

posted by jonmc 03 June | 20:17

Obama is the boss of you, b1tch.

Not helping. I think Senator Clinton made a poor candidate, but do we really need to stoop to this level?

posted by bmarkey 03 June | 20:21

Holy shit, Doohickie!

that's not only inappropriate, but consider also that this would have been an equally historic event had Hillary won.

She's a great candidate and no matter what, this entire race has changed the political landscape in this country for years to come.

The best thing about the Democratic race this year is the fact that not only did we have the first African-American and woman candidate for President, but they were both rock-solid candidates.

Obama is not the boss of anyone. Chill.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 03 June | 20:22

You're making us Obama supporters look bad Doohickie, don't say shit like that. I wasn't happy with the way that Sen. Clinton ran her campaign and am thrilled that Obama has finally won but if you say things like that you're just confirming Hillary's supporters suspicion that people opposed her because she's a woman. If you're a democrat, you should want her supporters to support Obama, and antagonizing them with sexist language isn't going to do that.

posted by octothorpe 03 June | 20:24

'Bout god damn time too. This primary had begun to remind me of the feuding People's Front of Judea and Judean People's Front from Life of Brian.

On preview, relax, guys. You're angsting out over a little throw away comment that doesn't mean anything. You know, plate of beans, etc.

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 20:27

You aren't the boss of me, Pie!

posted by Lipstick Thespian 03 June | 20:28

Nobody's the boss of me!

I am, however, the boss of LT.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 20:30

Heehee! Good call, Pie.

"Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?"

posted by Miko 03 June | 20:30

LT, you're fired!

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 20:30

Fan-fucking-tastic!

I think that in all this campaign skirmishing over the past many moons I'd kinda let myself forget how singularly outstanding Obama's candidature is.

I remember first noticing his name on MetaFilter (I think), and calls for Clinton-Obama '08 -- who could've imagined it would come out the other way?

Sure is stranger than fiction.

posted by AwkwardPause 03 June | 20:34

Isn't it funny how things change over time? Remember when Clinton was the assumed Democratic nominee, and everyone was all excited about Giuliani or Thompson for the Republican party?

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 20:36

Yea, I was certain that it would be Clinton vs. Giuliani in the Fall. Not that any of the political pundits are any better at prediction than I am.

posted by octothorpe 03 June | 20:43

I'd kinda let myself forget how singularly outstanding ....

Which goes both ways, too. All along, while we got involved in finely dicing which was going to be the nominee and who was in front and who was behind, it was really easy to lose sight of the fact that we had an amazingly historic event going on, and a choice of candidates any of whom would really make us proud.

posted by Miko 03 June | 20:43

Miko, I was thinking the exact same thing, since as I write this, I'm listening to Hillary's speech. I'd have been proud to have her for a president too.

Also, can we strike the word Pundit from the English language now? I hate it sooooo much.

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 20:45

Chelsea Clinton, 2026!

posted by muddgirl 03 June | 20:51

everyone was all excited about Giuliani or Thompson for the Republican party?

I never took Thompson seriously, but I was fucking scared about Giuliani. I wonder where his inexplicable "sit out the early primaries" strategies ranks among all-time election failures? Or was he really a non-starter with the GOP base to begin with?

posted by mullacc 03 June | 20:52

The one thing that gives me pause about this whole process is that no matter who won the Democratic nomination, it would have been historic. Which is really frickin' sad, seeing as how we as a country are just now catching up to dozens of other countries to whom elected leaders who happened to be black, female, or even both are yesterday's news.

Maybe now I can convince my landlord to let me put my Obama yard sign out.

posted by syntax 03 June | 21:06

Whatever Hillary does now, I still hope that she'll manufacture shirt #2, because I *NEED* that.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 21:09

Chelsea Clinton, 2026!

This isn't the Dancing With The Stars thread.

posted by jonmc 03 June | 21:11

What would have really made this historic would be if McCain were gay.

On preview, TPS, is that Hillary outing herself as a /b/tard?

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 21:12

Shove off, jon. I'm serious. She's got better credentials than our current president, that's for sure.

posted by muddgirl 03 June | 21:14

Sorry to spoil the party, but inappropriate or not, that's how I feel about it. She's lost the war and still trying to negotiate terms of surrender.

If she really wants to do what she says- which is help the Democratic Party win in November, and best represent the people who voted for her, I think she needs to stop the VP posturing and let Obama make the choice he feels is best, without being held hostage to Hillary's ambition.

Perhaps using the b-word wasn't appropriate, but it was intended more in the "It's Caturday, Bitch!" sense and not a disparagement of Hillary's gender. If it was taken that way, I apologize for my poor choice of words.

posted by Doohickie 03 June | 21:16

Chelsea Clinton, 2026!

I could get behind that! If she's interested, of course. Who was the last President not to go to law school? Have most gone?

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 21:18

She's got better credentials than our current president, that's for sure.

So does my ashtray. But please, no more relatives of former presidents, thanks. Actually, no more relatives of famous people becoming famous. at anything. thanks. let someone else have a chance.

posted by jonmc 03 June | 21:20

She's got better credentials than our current president, that's for sure.

She's also smart enough not to want to follow in her parents footsteps. She's seen the sausage being made - my guess is that she won't want to order the kielbasa.

posted by bmarkey 03 June | 21:21

She's seen the sausage being made

I don't even know where to start with that one!

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 21:26

Yeah, that was clearly inappropriate!!!

posted by Doohickie 03 June | 21:37

Cool. Now lets go win this thing.

posted by Brandon Blatcher 03 June | 21:39

(TPS - Actually, Bush was a history major at Yale, followed by Harvard Business School. So yeah, our track record with History majors isn't too good...)

posted by muddgirl 03 June | 21:45

Doohickie - it's not just the "b-word", as you call it now. It's the sentiment that she should shut up and let The Man put her in her place. How dare Sen. Clinton have personal and professional ambition! How dare she put her own interests ahead of anyone elses!

posted by muddgirl 03 June | 21:46

else's interests!

posted by muddgirl 03 June | 21:47

Chelsea Clinton, 2026!

FAIL

It has to be 2028.

posted by special-k 03 June | 21:48

Perhaps using the b-word wasn't appropriate, but it was intended more in the "It's Caturday, Bitch!" sense and not a disparagement of Hillary's gender.

I think it's just really not cool to use the word "bitch" when critiquing a woman, especially one doing something she's got every right to do - run for President. As I said tonight, it's just as bad as using a famous n-word with regards to Obama. I'd really like to see it retired, and even though I am a critic of Clinton too, it's entirely possible to talk about her record and strategy and tactics without resorting to an insult which really is deeply gendered and hurtful, and has been used for decades, maybe centuries, to remind women that they're supposed to be no better than dogs. I don't mean to come down on you hard, Doohickie, but it's really beyond the pale and I'm done tolerating it. I wish we could all agree to that.

posted by Miko 03 June | 22:01

Amen, Miko.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 22:03

Miko for Vice President.

posted by bmarkey 03 June | 22:07

And me for President of Vice! Woohoo!

posted by bmarkey 03 June | 22:11

Well, Hillary had the right to run for President, but she's lost and really should sit down, shut up and move on. Anyone who would behave as she has should do the same.

I would agree that she shouldn't be called a bitch and settle for greedy, self absorbed no talented jackass.

posted by Brandon Blatcher 03 June | 22:15

Doohickie - it's not just the "b-word", as you call it now. It's the sentiment that she should shut up and let The Man put her in her place. How dare Sen. Clinton have personal and professional ambition! How dare she put her own interests ahead of anyone elses!

projecting much?

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 22:21

Mr. President of Vice, I'd like you to take charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and I'm authorizing you to create a new Bureau of Weed, Casino Gambling, and Sleaze.

posted by Miko 03 June | 22:22

Done and done. I think I'm gonna like this job.

posted by bmarkey 03 June | 22:23

Oo, oo, I want a job!

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 22:23

No, really, Miko.... picture it being used on a funny picture of cats and, you know, ummmm..... okay. Nevermind.

posted by Doohickie 03 June | 22:24

projecting much?

insecure much?

posted by Miko 03 June | 22:25

Miko? I don't follow you. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 22:26

picture it being used on a funny picture of cats and, you know, ummmm..... okay. Nevermind.

I'd like to, but the thing is, since you can't tell the difference in intent, it might as well not exist. It's hard to extend the benefit of the doubt when it's used by some people as a direct, gendered insult while others just think it's fun banter. Since it's provocative and likely to start stuff, I plan to avoid it and try to encourage dropping it from the discourse as much as we can.

posted by Miko 03 June | 22:27

Am I, pi? Maybe I am. Maybe I'm just sick and tired of this goddamned campaign. Maybe when I see someone use the phrase, "Get used to it. HE CALLS THE SHOTS," I project my own experiences with sexism on the phrase. Maybe I should just give up and get used to the fact that HE CALLS THE SHOTS.

posted by muddgirl 03 June | 22:30

Miko? I don't follow you. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

I don't follow you either. Looked like you were trying to take TPS down a notch somehow by suggesting that accusations against Hillary apply to her. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't see any reason for you to do that. I think every woman has heard that message at some point in her life. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see it when it gets delivered in politics.

I should be happy tonight - my candidate won - but I'm depressed. As I watched Hillary give her speech on TV in a local restaurant, I had to strain to hear her over four loud, smug middle-aged guys calling her 'bitch' and telling her to shut up and making gagging-on-a-penis sounds. I didn't imagine the message they were sending. I wish I knew more men who didn't act like that. I wish more men didn't act like that.

posted by Miko 03 June | 22:31

Miko, you just feel compelled to get the last word in on this, huh? I apologized, you reamed me. I tried to back out of it gracefully and you hammer me again. I'm sorry if you don't like the word, but I don't like the word fuck but people fucking use it all the fucking time.

So, just get over it, like I have to.

posted by Doohickie 03 June | 22:33

and you hammer me again

I didn't hammer you again, Doohickie.

posted by Miko 03 June | 22:34

Heh, this whole chip-on-the-shoulder, hair trigger PC thing going on here, I just remembered why I generally don't bother posting here anymore. LOL!

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 22:35

pi, the biggest chip in this thread seems to rest on your shoulder. It seems like you have issues bigger than the topic of this thread, and once again, you've taken an opportunity to drag them out yourself. Nobody is forcing you to be here.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 22:37

I'm not feeling chip on the shoulder or PC or angry. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm talking about how I see stuff, in total earnest, with people I have viewed (perhaps foolishly) as friendly and basically pleasant to talk with. If it reads some other way to you, reread with a different tone. I'm feeling sad tonight that even though we've come a long way, we also haven't come a long way, at the same time.

posted by Miko 03 June | 22:38

Believe it or not, Miko, I know what you mean.

((Miko))

Sorry I'm a male middle-aged ass...

posted by Doohickie 03 June | 22:39

oooh tps, that was ever so slightly hostile. If I didn't know better, I'd think you dislike me> ;)

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 22:43

It's not that I dislike you, I just don't get what you're trying to do.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 22:44

Not trying to do much, just note that some schmoe makes a silly flippant remark and the board overintellectualizes it and gets more angst ridden than a 15 year old emo over something that is pretty clearly trivial and not meant to hurt anybody.

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 22:46

That's your opinion, and if you put that you way, you can't be surprised if people get mad that you're not taking them seriously.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 03 June | 22:49

Hey pie, you know, when you want a cruller, you go to the bakery. When you want overintellectualized angst, you go to MetaLand.

DH, your many fine qualities eclipse any accidental assness.

posted by Miko 03 June | 22:53

That's all I'm saying. Not taking things soooo seriously is a good thing!

Miko, that comment brings me flashbacks of our "Myspaceface" photo friday!

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 22:54

Not taking things soooo seriously is a good thing!

Yep, kinda, but sometimes things feel a bit serious and it's good to be sensitive to that when you can. Also to recognize that when you toss out a bit of a provactive comment, of course people will get bothered - not because they're PC, but because you're pushing buttons intentionally.

posted by Miko 03 June | 22:57

gets more angst ridden than a 15 year old emo over something that is pretty clearly trivial and not meant to hurt anybody

In order to see the comment as trivial and not meant to hurt anybody, I suspect you've never been told to "shut up and sit down, bitch". The reaction to Doohickie's comment does not stem from immaturity or over-emotionality (read: 15 year old emo), but from having been subjected to these kinds of comments for years. When I hear a man tell a woman to sit down and shut the fuck up, it invariably evokes every time I've been the target of that kind of statement, and it invariably pisses me off beyond belief.

And it doesn't always have to be as blatant as "sit down and shut the fuck up, bitch." The natural corollary of listening to this crap for years is that the recipient often develops a very sensitive meter for what lies below the words being thrown around, even when they're prefaced with words other than 'bitch'.

posted by Lassie 03 June | 22:58

I should be happy tonight - my candidate won - but I'm depressed.

I'm disgusted and revolted, and I've been feeling this way for some time. I've never felt further from the Democratic party... and if anyone had ever told me that I would feel this way in a campaign year in which the nomination would go to either a black man or a woman, each of whom had an excellent shot of winning the presidency, I would not have believed it. I wouldn't have been able to imagine how that scenario could be anything but historic and progressive, and how I could ever be anything but delighted and excited.

Instead, my mental imagery has been running this way: Imagine the Donner Party, except instead of eating the dead to avoid death by starvation months into the journey, they all began slaughtering and eating each other as soon as they began to feel peckish, a couple of days after setting out. And I'm talking about both sides. I'm utterly disillusioned, and I wasn't necessarily rooting for Clinton. If pressed, I would have probably had a slight bit of preference for Obama.

posted by taz 03 June | 23:02

they all began slaughtering and eating each other as soon as they began to feel peckish, a couple of days after setting out

Wait, Taz, you're older than me, and you're surprised by this? Conversely, perhaps I'm just too young to recall a time when my experiences would lead me to believe that people would behave in a more edifying fashion.

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 23:10

This campaign has brought out the best and worst of the democratic party. I've never been exposed to so much casual racism in my life. I'm talking lifelong registered democrats dropping an n-bomb when I called them on behalf of the Obama campaign. Calling him "boy" which I find mighty offensive for a Harvard-educated lawyer and United States senator in his late forties.

And really, even his supporters freaked me out on occasion.

You know, I have my issues with Hillary, but it's based on her work as my senator, and a disagreement with her voting for the war. I've had more Obama supporters than I care to count express their dislike of her in ways that have more to do with gender than anything else.

It makes me uneasy. I don't want the party to become split.
But, on the same token, I don't WANT the sexists and racists in the democratic party. Let them vote republican. Let them vote for Lyndon LaRouche. I don't care. But the big tent just isn't that fucking big, so they need to get the hell out.

And therein lies what has bugged me about the current tone of the campaign. Obama has been praising towards Hillary for some time. He expresses disagreement as policy matters. He describes things in terms of the Dems as a whole. He surely knows he's getting the sexist vote, but he hasn't courted it.
Clinton has come far too close to straight-out courting the racist vote than I ever imagined she would have. That "hard working americans, white americans" thing made me feel ill. And there's no way a woman as smart as she is, and as meticulous, would mis-speak so badly without meaning to. For gods sake, she;s a policy wonk. She lives her life in detail and minutia.
Did she get flack? Sure. And then she went on to win the two states which hold the distinction of being the only ones where I got people calling me, um, a very bad thing beginning with an n and ending with "lover" on numerous occasions while phonebanking. So it seems like it worked with that segment of the population, at least.

And it bugs me. Other than her vote for the war and some BS campaign promises relating to where I live specifically, I've never hated her. I respected her work on health care, and she's always been a strong supporter of reproductive rights, a cause that means more to me than any other major issue. But I see her destroying her own legacy in an attempt to win. And it's frustrating since she has the potential to do SO MUCH in the senate, but at the rate she's going her name will be destroyed before long. She could be the crusader for women's rights, a champion of the poor, a new Ted Kennedy. But she is lining herself up to be remembered as the candidate who pandered to racists to win.

Oh, and FWIW, I knew Giuliani didn't have a chance in hell when he tossed his hat in. He may be able to get through a couple states on 911 bs, but if McCain isn't conservative enough for the religious right than how would they take to the dude who moved his girlfriend into the mayor's mansion- while he was still married to his second wife? Plus: abortion, guns, creationism. And, he's catholic (if he's any faith). There's still a lot of evangelicals who flat-out don't like Catholics.

posted by kellydamnit 03 June | 23:12

Wow, kellydammit.

Sigh.

the big tent just isn't that fucking big

Amen.

posted by Miko 03 June | 23:17

What kelly said! Brillliant - well said!

And now, a quote that, I believe, Miko, introduced in a thread six months ago:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Winston Churchill

posted by pieisexactlythree 03 June | 23:21

you're surprised by this?

Yes, I'm actually surprised, and I'm not a dewy-eyed idealist. I think I'm more of a pragmatic idealist, and both sides of my nature have been offended by what this turned into - again, on both sides. Regarding the candidates, I agree with what kellydamnit said above, as well as what has been mentioned about the Obama seekrit anti-gay message: they each saw a way to try to court the worst elements of the party, and they went for it. And as for the supporters, the misogynistic bullshit just pretty much took my breath away. I feel like I don't have an affiliation any more.

posted by taz 03 June | 23:28

As a fellow NY-er, I agree with much of what you said about Hillary, kellydammit.

He surely knows he's getting the sexist vote, but he hasn't courted it

This however, made me think of something in the Shakespeare's Sister blog that muddgirl linked to above that I agree with. I wish that at some point he'd said that sexism is not okay in the same way that racism is not okay, and that there's no room in his campaign for that kind of divisiveness. Criticize Hillary all you want for her policies and her votes, but not because she's a woman. I don't know if he said this and I missed it, or if there's some strategic reason that prevented him from saying this, but I do know that I would have stood up and cheered if I'd heard it. I do hanker for that kind of uprightness and straightforwardness from my candidate, and I think a statement like that would have gone a long way towards quelling both the misogyny and the unease that Hillary supporters felt about his campaign for tolerating it. I know a candidate is not responsible for the sentiments expressed by his supporters, but he could have taken the moral high ground here, especially as the husband of a highly qualified woman and the father of two daughters, and I don't think he did.

posted by Lassie 03 June | 23:31

I'm utterly disillusioned, and I wasn't necessarily rooting for Clinton.....

Hear, hear taz! I still say if Pelosi's president on election day I'll write her in (VERY long shot, I know) over Obama. Not that I'm so wild about her either, but I'm completely disgusted with the way the campaign went.

Those who've been displaying "bros before hos" can fucking take them down now. Is that the way they'd like the girls in their families to know how they feel about women?

posted by brujita 03 June | 23:53

I've never been an Obama fan or a Hillary fan, but damn, Hillary's speach was just very bad. An 'If I can't have it I'll break it so no one can" kinda thing.

posted by arse_hat 03 June | 23:58

Weird. arse, I actually thought it was a very classy speech, and felt a bit of sadness as I listened. And brujita, have you ever worked in corporate America? It's a sad realization I've had that most of the people running things are basically a bunch of frat boys who would think that's funny.

posted by pieisexactlythree 04 June | 00:13

as well as what has been mentioned about the Obama seekrit anti-gay message

The what now?
He's the only candidate who totally wants the defense of marriage act repealed.

Criticize Hillary all you want for her policies and her votes, but not because she's a woman. I don't know if he said this and I missed it, or if there's some strategic reason that prevented him from saying this, but I do know that I would have stood up and cheered if I'd heard it.

I don't recall him ever speaking out against it, either.
But then, I don't think Hillary has ever spoken out against the very racist tone a lot of her surrogates (ferraro in particular) had taken, until she was forced to defend herself because of them after being directly questioned.
However, two wrongs don't make a right, and it would have been nice for him to say something during an interview or the like.

It's interesting, though, how often these two things have been intertwined in US history. There was a great controversy after the Civil War because a lot of people wanted to also get women the vote when freed slaves were given it. And I guess it wasn't done since the consensus was that they couldn't manage both. It's like we've been forced to choose for 200 years, fight sexism or fight racism, but never both.

For me, it boils down to this. I'm a liberal. I've been a liberal since before I knew what the word liberal was. I supported and volunteered for Obama. But if Clinton won I would have voted for her. Because I am a liberal, and because I'd sooner eat glass than do anything which might help get McCain into the oval office and a position where he may appoint three justices. I cannot respect any Clinton supporter who plans to vote for McCain. That goes beyond sour grapes. That's actually going out of your way to bring down four more years of hell on a nation because your favored candidate lost. I can't imagine how anyone can justify this.

posted by kellydamnit 04 June | 00:17

Weird. arse, I actually thought it was a very classy speech, and felt a bit of sadness as I listened.

Really? I didn't care for it. I think the classy thing would have been for her to congratulate her opponent and start helping to bring her supporters around to backing him so we have a unified party come November. It's over, and she's diminishing his accomplishment by pretending the race is still going on.

Although it does make me sad. It might be because I'm the same age as Chelsea, but Hillary always reminded me of my mom (in a good way).

I hope she can find a path now that this is over.

And brujita, have you ever worked in corporate America? It's a sad realization I've had that most of the people running things are basically a bunch of frat boys who would think that's funny.

It's actually a real shirt. Granted, it's one of the LESS offensive ones made by that company. They seem to specialize in "shirt that will make your mother slap you across the face and/or get you punched in a bar."

posted by kellydamnit 04 June | 00:26

Pie, I had hoped that ultimately if Hillary was not the nominee, she would be the lead in a new Kennedy like dynasty. I had hoped she would give us a new chance at seeing women as the same as men in the political arena. I don't think that will happen.

posted by arse_hat 04 June | 00:29

I live in the epicenter of corporate America. Sexism is worldwide.

posted by brujita 04 June | 00:43

kellydamnit, it was mentioned by boringpostcards here, with some links here.

In the willing-to-throw-our-constituency-to-the-wolves-to-get-a-vote competition, I think Clinton has come out worse - but a ton of Obama supporters have been absolutely gleeful with the misogynistic crap. And, oh yeah - the Clinton supporters who would vote for 100-years-in-Iraq McCain? Just beautiful.

As I said earlier, "disgusted and revolted" pretty much sums up my current mood. I would be mighty pleased if things would turn a corner now, because I desperately want to feel a little bit proud about something - anything - in American politics after so very, very long.

posted by taz 04 June | 00:46

IT sales seems to be the least sexist of all my past jobs.
But then, I'm one of those scumbag bitches who has zero problem calling someone and being all "hey hon, I haven't talked to you in weeeeeeks. Don't you like me anymore?" if it means they'll buy half a million in laptops from me.

posted by kellydamnit 04 June | 00:50

Ok, I guess I read the speech a little differently. What I heard was "I'm going to concede, without saying the word concede, so my supporters don't slit their wrists, while paving the way for an Obama endorsement" It seemed like it was more meant to be a bookend to the negativity.

posted by pieisexactlythree 04 June | 00:52

"But then, I'm one of those scumbag bitches who has zero problem calling someone and being all "hey hon, I haven't talked to you in weeeeeeks. Don't you like me anymore?" if it means they'll buy half a million in laptops from me."

Me too kid. It must be in the name ;)

"It seemed like it was more meant to be a bookend to the negativity'

Wow pie, it just seemed so petulant and angry to me.

Being a pol must really suck.

posted by arse_hat 04 June | 00:58

As I said earlier, "disgusted and revolted" pretty much sums up my current mood.

taz, as the newly-appointed President of Vice, I think I can help. Look for a small package in the mail soon. It'll be marked "Sumatran Coffee", but, uh, you know.

This is all part of our new "America: Chill The Fuck Out" campaign. We're covering ex-pats first; those of you in the states should be getting your "stimulation checks" within the next 6 to 8 weeks.

posted by bmarkey 04 June | 01:01

I don't drink Coffee and I don't want my stimulation checked, thank you!

posted by arse_hat 04 June | 01:06

I said the package would be marked "Sumatran Coffee"; I didn't say what would be inside. Be cool, man.

posted by bmarkey 04 June | 01:09

ugh. tl; dr. Anyone talking smack on behalf of Obama is squandering one of the biggest gifts he's brought this campaign: Thoughtful, dignified, adult discourse.

posted by Ambrosia Voyeur 04 June | 01:12

ahh...

cool...

posted by arse_hat 04 June | 01:13

It's possible that I just came in part way through. I caught the speech on NPR this evening, and I just heard lots of platitudes about the hard working people of America, etc. and even a few relatively kind remarks about Obama. Perhaps the latter were so far outside my expectations that it colored my perception too favorably.

posted by pieisexactlythree 04 June | 01:18

Looking at this from across the pond and with no dog in the fight, my view is that, whichever Democratic candidate won the nomination, it would be a boost for the Republicans.

I say this because I believe there are many, many people who, when it comes right down to it, no matter what their so-called political beliefs are, would not vote either for a woman or a black man.

If I had to choose, it'd be Clinton. I think Obama lacks gravitas.

posted by essexjan 04 June | 01:36

Bitch is the new Black

posted by kirkaracha 04 June | 01:39

A_V, I'm not sure who you are talking to... ?

Thanks for the package, B., I'm feeling more "Sumatran" already. ;)

posted by taz 04 June | 01:55

As someone who is equally half-black, half-white, and from Kansas City, I demand a cabinet position. Or at least a spot in President Obama's entourage. Cuz you know how we be; it's gonna be millions of black folks having a cookout on the White House lawn every weekend (according to voters in W. Virginia).

Nothing but love and hope for November, but I won't be surprised when nothing changes.

posted by Eideteker 04 June | 05:49

As someone who is everything he's not, i demand an appointment as something cushy involving a driver and diplomatic rights.

posted by ethylene 04 June | 06:03

This is hell week, kids. The current catharsis is just that and nothing more. Both campaigns have to adjust to the new reality of Obama winning the nomination. The party will unite in the end though, and it will feel that much more unified in light of this moment of discord.

posted by Doohickie 04 June | 07:40

I say this because I believe there are many, many people who, when it comes right down to it, no matter what their so-called political beliefs are, would not vote either for a woman or a black man.

This is true, but honestly, it's not as many as people would think. And they wouldn't vote for any democrat in the general, anyways, even if it was a white man. So ultimately, if they vote in the democrat primary because they really hate one of them and want them out, or because some radio host told them to, or whatever, well... in November they wouldn't have been on board anyways.

posted by kellydamnit 04 June | 08:21

I want to apologize for blowing up a bit last night. I guess I'm a sore loser, and a lousy drunk. Sen. Clinton has her faults, but it still saddens me to see a strong candidate treated the way she has been treated. If the roles were switched, and Sen. Obama were the underdog facing ridiculously racist commentary, I would feel the same way.

Nothing but love and hope for November, but I won't be surprised when nothing changes.

Amen

posted by muddgirl 04 June | 08:33

But then, I don't think Hillary has ever spoken out against the very racist tone a lot of her surrogates (ferraro in particular) had taken, until she was forced to defend herself because of them after being directly questioned.

I agree completely, and believe that her failure to stand up to the racism of her supporters sank her as far as a lot of liberals were concerned. And that's the way it should be. However, my point was that Obama could have assuaged a lot of unease early on by simply taking a stand against the misogyny as well as the racism on display during the campaign. I think it would only have helped him with feminists who grew increasingly angry at the way Hillary's candidacy was treated as time went on. He's our candidate for president, and I think we deserve a candidate who's willing to stand up and say that he will not condone sexism, regardless of what his opponents are willing to tolerate to win.

posted by Lassie 04 June | 08:38

This is true, but honestly, it's not as many as people would think.

I agree; it's incredbly painful to hear the comments, and the loudness and crassness of them makes those people seem more numerous than they are. But it really isn't a large number of people. And I'm starting to feel that those of us who don't believe that have more of a collective responsibility to just isolate and freeze out racism and sexism when it arises.

Everyone's noted that neither campaign has really taken a clear stand condemning prejudice among their supporters. I would really like to see that, as well, and I think I'm going to write a quick comment to both campaigns saying so. Hillary here and Obama here.

posted by Miko 04 June | 10:31

It's so weird to avoid the internet and tv for a while. I only just found out about Obama. Huh.

posted by gaspode 04 June | 11:04

I felt that the speech Hlllary gave last night was a whole lot of "I'm not admitting it's over", and only token appreciation of what Obama's achieved in this campaign.

There was a outright coyness to it that irritated me.
How can someone not know what her next move is, when the math about the impossibility of her nomination has been out there for months?

I agree with ArseHat about the "taking the ball and going home" aspect of her speech last night.

I'm not sexist or racist - I would have loved to see Hillary cruise to a nomination.

BUT...she did almost everything you can do to self-sabotage. Not counting the caucus states, not looking past February 5th financially, courting the racist vote. Finagling about Bosnia and whether FL and MI matter.

Meanwhile, Barack's out there getting more humble with each step he gets closer to the nomination, i.e. "this campaign isn't about me, or Hillary or John McCain" and the numerous references he puts in his speeches about his constituents being the agents of change.

I hope for all our sake's that the Dems get their shit together and are a force in November. This entire campaign has been a seven-month spotlight on the serious societal and political flaws on both sides of the aisle.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 04 June | 11:25

How do people feel about the prospects of an Obama/Clinton ticket? On the one hand, I think it could re-energize Democratic voters (from both camps) who feel slighted and/or disgusted by the whole ugly process we've endured these past several months. On the other hand, it could really light a fire under the far-right bigot wing of the GOP, who otherwise might not have bothered showing up at the polls on election day to pull the lever for a "crypto-liberal"(!) like John McCain.

posted by Atom Eyes 04 June | 11:37

Doohickies comment was off color and inappropriate. However I would like to assert that it is extremely possible to dislike Hilary based on her personal merits and behavior, not her gender. I think she is a liability to the party for one big reason: she, like W, is a divisive, polarizing figure. You can tell the Right to like her on merit until you're blue in the face but she'll remain a villain to them. Their loss, their fault, their failure of perception, you may say, but there it is. HRC cannot reach across the aisle and unite this country. Period. I'm not saying we need to select a candidate palatable to the Right for their sake, just that HRC's vaunted "experience" amounts to baggage as well. I would like to see a less encumbered candidate who did not vote for the war, thanks.

So with due respect ma'am it is time to step aside. There is another candidate here. He has enormous support. The twists and turns of this race have brought him to victory. His victory is not totallyclean but neither do you have some huge mandate. I know it hurts but this persistence is starting to look like hubris.

posted by scarabic 04 June | 11:42

it is extremely possible to dislike Hilary based on her personal merits and behavior, not her gender.

That's totally true, and we've talked about that here. A lot of people, like myself, aren't motivated by gender in one direction or the other in this choice.

posted by Miko 04 June | 12:14

How do people feel about the prospects of an Obama/Clinton ticket?

No no good lord no.
Six months ago I was all about the dream ticket (although I wanted a vp who was also against the war from the get go).
I wavered on that when she said the GOP nominee was better than a fellow Democrat.
But after the "hard working white voters," after the "rfk was shot in june!," after ferraro.... no way. She's run too dirty a campaign. if she was devisive before she's radioactive now.

posted by kellydamnit 04 June | 12:30

After the campaigns that the two of them have conducted thus far, I must admit that an Obama/Clinton ticket would leave me kinda disappointed in both of 'em.

posted by box 04 June | 12:48

I still oppose the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket, simply because they are both top-level leaders and I think it would be a waste of talent for one of them to serve as veep.

Long ago I had wanted to see Hillary as either Attorney General or Secretary of State. I'm not as interested in those possibilities as I once was. After getting to know her approach to foreign policy, I no longer think she'd be able to work with Obama to advance the type of foreign-policy tone and new strategy he intends to employ. I can see some reasons for an Attorney General slot, though for that I wish she had experience as a judge. She could do it, though.

But the thing is, I think Hillary would be much more useful to the country in the cabinet than going to funerals and state dinners and such. She's an analyst and a policy wonk, with intense skill at the detail and technical level of policy. I'd rather see her as some sort of czar or cabinet member than wasting her time as Senate tie-breaker and waver from tarmacs.

posted by Miko 04 June | 13:02

It's extremely unlikely that there will be an Obama/Clinton ticket. I won't go so far as to say that it's impossible, but there's a slightly better chance that you'll wake up tomorrow to find a trio of piglets on your roof performing a choreographed medley from Guys and Dolls. Here's why:

1) Everything scarabic said. Hillary Clinton, for better or worse, is a lightning rod for wingnuts. I'm sure they'll be able to invent all sorts of bullshit without the Democrats handing them such a gimme.

2) As kellydammit points out, she's spent a large portion of the campaign saying that she thought Obama was not qualified to be president - even going so far as to express a preference for McCain. I'm guessing that wasn't lost on Obama or his advisors.

3) Obama has put himself forward as being able to provide "change you can believe in". One of the things that put me off Clinton was how she represents the old way of approaching politics, her eagerness to go negative in the campaign being the shining example. Obama may or may not be able to deliver on his promises, but I suspect that he'd be undercutting his credibility by choosing Clinton as a running mate.

My guess is that the best offer she can hope for would be some sort of cabinet post. Or, on preview, what Miko said.

posted by bmarkey 04 June | 13:12

Who was the last President not to go to law school?

George W. Bush.

(Bonus tidbit: he was also the last president whose dad was president!)

I can't see why Clinton would want to be VP, or why Obama should offer it to her. The comparison to Ted Kennedy is obvious. He failed, rather spectacularly, in his 1980 presidential run, but became a truly legendary senator. That role is Clinton's for the taking.

If she backs down from her "we wuz robbed!" approach and endorses Obama warmly, then more or less every Democrat who'd voted for her will, as is only rational, vote for him.

So, no, it's a bad idea all around.

posted by ibmcginty 04 June | 13:23

Call me crazy, but I was hoping that Obama would begin his speech by saying "My fellow Americans...pardon me while I whip it out!"

(I bet it's occured to him)

posted by jonmc 04 June | 18:22

On our way to the movies tonight, I noticed there was a table for voter registration (great idea). So I made my sister register to vote. The sassy old lady running the table was thankful she registered, and I was thankful she was there. The beat goes on, the beat goes on.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 04 June | 20:21

On our way to the movies tonight, I noticed there was a table for voter registration (great idea).

I live just off the path of the Allentown Art Festival, which is one of the biggest street festivals in NY. We're setting up a table at the head of my driveway to register voters.
We'll even have a laptop on my wifi to register campaign volunteers.

Anyone else hear Hillary's comments at AIPAC today? She may not have endorsed Obama, but she is moving in that direction.

I know Senator Obama understands what it is at stake here. It has been an honor to contest these primaries with him. It is an honor to call him my friend. And let me be very clear: I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel. I know that Senator Obama shares my view that the next president must be ready to say to the world: America’s position is unchanging, our resolve unyielding, our stance nonnegotiable. The United States stands with Israel, now and forever.

posted by kellydamnit 04 June | 21:11

It does look like she's going to give in within the next few days.

posted by Miko 04 June | 22:21

03 June 2008