Check this out:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

I know some of you don't get this for another hour.  Please watch if you can and check out Ickes' "don't hit me/I don't believe a word I'm saying" body language.  Is this the best spokesman Clinton can muster?  

Larry Sinclair has been out ther along time.

That poor, sad, and ultimately horribly ugly woman.  And by ugly, I mean the ugliness of soul that camera lens and microphone captured.

I can't get her sad, sick outburst out of my mind.  And I don't necessarily blame her for her outrage.  The Clinton campaign has nurtured that ugliness, lovingly fertilized it with the manure of their "arguments," telling her supporters that the election was somehow being stolen from Sen. Clinton.  That Clinton's own faults as a candidate were not of her making, but were really due to misogyny, or conspiracy, or "disenfranchisement," or... whatever the argument of the day was.  They fed it, watered it, and shined artificial light on it in places like hillaryis44, clintonforum, taylormarsh, and talkleft.

Never mind that she has been a nationally-known brand for more than 16 years.  That she and her husband, more than any other team in the Democratic Party, have controlled the Party levers of access and power for that same period.   That she had all the money, and hundreds of delegates lined up before the first vote was cast. That she had her pick of the "best" Democratic "strategists" that her name, experience and money could buy. That until she lost in Iowa, she had been considered, for years, the inevitable nominee of the Party whenever she inevitably decided to run.

And never mind that Barack Obama has now brought in massively more cash from a massively diverse group of supporters, won more states, earned more delegates, taken the lead in superdelegates, and yes, gained more votes in primaries and caucuses than she.

Sen. Clinton's field of weeds have now overgrown their usefulness, and are now choking the Clinton legacy, the only thing she and her husband were ever truly "entitled" to.

to lunatics/idiots like this?

"racist" to "lunatics/idiots."

It's just sad that a few of her minutes were wasted on such a sad and demented argument.

I hope that my 15 minutes are for something funny and useful to people.

I do understand what it is like to be angry and ignored... for about 8 years I have been screaming at the top of my lungs how insane the Republican party and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Ashcroft/Wolfowitz have been...

Having said that - it's a mystery how these alleged Democrats (frankly I am convinced that some of them are recruited from the Republican party) don't understand that Obama has been more democratically elected and represents more of us.

Lanny insanity/inanity:

unfortunately, this line of thinking has been spread around enough to be concerned.

I made calls for the Byrne campaign the other day. Out of the 25 voter contacts that I made, 3 were angry at Obama. Some people are pissed. We need to let them have some time to grieve the loss. There needs to be some time for persuasion because their votes will have to be won. Then we need to accept them back in with open arms. If they don't come back to the fold, I think it will damage us but we will just have to work harder to overcome it.

I don't see the value of spreading this pathological nonsense any farther.  Next thing we know, the Washington Times will pick up this garbage and report it on their front page as factual news.

The best way to support Obama is to support his message of hope and inclusion, not to dwell on the braying of hopeless losers.

Think about it former and current Clinton supporters.

Do you really want to elect John McSame to the office that nominates future justices?

Really?

We'd best make dead certain we have at least 61 strong Democrats in the Senate (and I do NOT count that crazy independent from Connecticut).

The emotionally disturbed people that are held up to ridicule in this post do not reflect the vast majority of Clinton supporters - the very ones that Barak Obama wants on his side. As many Obama supporters are critical of the Clinton campaign for being poor losers, it would be nice to see Obama supporters demonstrate what good winners look like.

I thought one of the purposes of this blog was to promote party unity.  

When Asa Earl Carter wrote this kind of language for George Wallace - and Dick Morris recently compared the Hillary campaign to George Wallace's - the most distinguished Southern historian Dan Carter (The Politics of Rage - a biography of George Wallace) referred to it simply as American Fascism. These people - like the woman pictured here - have always been here in the Northeast - they are my family and relatives - they are the people you saw in the Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of the Boston man charging a black man and using an American flag as a lance when the courts ordered integration in the early Sixties. We are going to have to start talking straight in this country as Professor Carter does or this will not be dealt with. The Clintons use the same tactics as Wallace and Joe McCarthy. If they could take this election by any means, they would.

At the end of a very hotly contested meeting, where Clinton's supporters basically lost the day and are seeing their hope of victory being dashed, somebody videotaped a furious and disappointed woman venting her frustrations.

She is not representative of the many Clinton supporters who plan on uniting behind the nominee and working for victory in November.

The way to win back those now grieving their loss is with compassion and by pointing out all we have to lose if McCain wins.  

Gloating and villifying and holding up to mockery the extremist few at their worst hour is a prescription to ensure loss in November.  

I don't fear that Clinton supporters will vote for McCain but I do worry that they will simply stay home. The way to prevent that is to move on and focus on the positive.

Sore losers are a problem that can be overcome.  But sore winners who just can't let go of the fight after they've won are a danger to unity.  

Which leads to some questions for Chris.

In this post, are you saying that this obviously disturbed woman in the video and the quotes cited on HuffPo are representative of Sen. Clinton's supporters generally? In not, then what are you saying?

Do you think this post fairly represents the feeling of many of Obama supporters?

If this is what Obama supporters think of Clinton supporters, why would you think we would embrace your candidate?  Or, to look at it from another perspective, why would you want us to do so?

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and understand that we NEED the Clinton supporters, or at least the majority of them, in order to win this thing AND to have success with an Obama presidency.  This doesn't amount to an endorsement on my part of Hillary as the VP candidate - I think that would be a very bad idea - but it does amount to an endorsement of welcoming Hillary and her supporters to work with Obama and everyone else who wants real change.  Ask this angry, bitterly disappointed, elderly woman whether she REALLY wants McSame selecting Supreme Court justices and she's going to say no.  Instead of holding her up to ridicule we should acknowledge that there are very upset people out there who, like normal humans, do not respond well to humiliation or taunts, and who need to feel that they really do count, even though their candidate didn't get the nod.  

And frankly, folks, unless you're a woman of a certain age you cannot begin to understand where her anger is coming from.  There's not a middle-aged woman or older in this country who cannot recount at least one instance of being belittled and dismissed and of having her intelligence and competence questioned simply because she's a woman, and for some the hurt is deeper and wounds more raw than they are for others.  There is not a historically aware woman in this country who does not know that the vote for black men came decades before the vote for all women, notwithstanding the later effects of Jim Crow, and there are some who feel that Hillary is the last chance they have of ever seeing a woman in the White House.  The loss of this opportunity is felt on a deeply personal level by a lot of these women.  

I watched the Pfleger video and found it ugly and humiliating.  I'm an Obama supporter, but his mockery of Hillary and by extension her supporters was extremely destructive.  I didn't like it when I saw that kind of thing from Hillary (remember the skies opening and the light descending?), and I don't like it from Obama supporters.  Fellow Dems and left-leaning Independents are NOT the enemy here, and one of the first rules has to be that if we are to see a reunification across this deep chasm which has developed between Obama and Clinton supporters we must accord each other respect and dignity.  

The longer this goes on, the more I am concerned about Baracks ability to win back Clinton supporters. The manner in which some of her surrogates have waged this campaign is an absolute disgrace! I am blown away by the sense of entitlement that many Clinton supporters feel. When this race began, they believed that the Presidency was hers for the taking. They are misdirecting their anger towards Obama. Clinton supporters should be angry at her handlers. They should be angry at how Clinton has waged a scorched earth campaign in an effort to hold onto their control of the party. I just do not see how we are going to get many of her supporters to join Barack's campaign without putting Clinton on the ticket. Even then, I believe that many of them will still stay home or vote for McCain.  

...at this point, putting Clinton on the ticket would risk seriously angering many Obama supporters.  

Webb has played this tight race between Obama and Clinton as shrewdly as any veteran politician.  Yes, he may have attracted the anti-alpha male ire of some misguided feminists among Clinton supporters, but if Webb gets the VP nod, no one is going to be able to accuse Obama of picking one of his own.

Obama is going to need the military, national security creds to counteract McCain.  And Webb will be able to connect with many voters in West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky - especially the labor voters there.

The problem with putting Hillary or any of her more extreme supporters in key positions within an Obama administration is that the Hillary team could never really be trusted. Hillary's agenda would always be Hillary - or at least that is what would be suspected. There would likely be four years of game playing and Obama would be facing her in 2012 all over again.

Hillary's supporters, on the other hand, are frustrated because they want to see substantive progress for women after years of struggle. The symbolism of a woman as President is just not going to happen this time around. However, that does not mean that an Obama administration cannot bring women into key leadership positions - its just that Hillary's personal agenda, her baggage and her murky ethics is what Obama has promised us he will break from.

No matter what her flaks claim, pro-Obama supporters are not sexists, they just don't like or trust Hillary.  

many superbly qualified women in an Obama administration.  

First, the idea that none of her "extreme supporters" can be in key positions in an Obama administration because they cannot be trusted is absurd. Actually, I would guess about, hmmmm, 100% of Hillary's supporters are loyal Americans who would consider it an honor to serve their country.

When you serve in an administration, your loyalty ought to be to the people, the nation and to the President, not to the person. This kind of personal loyalty crap is Bush and Nixon speaking, not Obama. Or, perhaps it is Obama? If so, I think we'd all be better off knowing now if this is how he thinks.

Clinton supporters are frustrated fr a number of reasons. I can't speak to the feminism question, but one of the more frustrating aspects of the Clinton run has been her treatment by many members of the press, treatment not dictated by Sen. Clinton's gender, but by the fact that she is a Clinton.

I've seen no evidence that Obama or his campaign has acted in a sexist manner. Nor is there any reason to believe that Obama will fill his administration with people based on a variety of factors, hopefully the main one being competence for the job. But if, as you seam to suggest, that the main criteria is fealty to Barack Obama, then count me as a Bob Barr voter.  

You're entitled to your opinion but I'd rather you not twist what I said into something I did not. What I did say was that (in my opinion) Hillary and her more extreme supporters could never really be trusted. In my opinion there is ample evidence that they would put self interests over larger interests. I think their conduct to date demonstrates exactly that.

I did not say, nor did I remotely suggest that an Obama administration should select people on fealty to Obama as a main criterion. No, I did not suggest a personal loyalty test. If you want to make silly flag waving statements, go ahead but please do not misrepresent what others have said ... there has been enough of that already.

Actually, my initial reaction, Greg, was to take offense at your statement too.  I don't, however, think you meant to insult all of Hillary's supporters. I certainly hope not.

There are many qualified women who supported Hillary who would serve admirably in an Obama administration.  They are loyal to the principles of progressive Democratic politics.

I personally would not like to see Hillary as the vice presidential candidate because, as I've made known before, I believe Jim Webb brings more to the ticket.  

I do hope Hillary stays in politics.  She can have an admirable future and contribute a great deal to the party and the nation from the Senate or even a run as governor of New York. I am also grateful that she has blazed the trail for another woman at some other time. She was the first woman presidential candidate to be taken seriously and to almost succeed. That's still quite a legacy!

If you mean people who were solely political operatives on her behalf, like Harold Ickes or Wolfson, well, sure, there is no expectation that they would serve in a Obama Administration.

What about Ed Rendell? Or Ted Strickland? Can they be trusted, or were they too extreme in their support of Clinton? Honestly, it's not clear from your post.

Even the idea that "Hillary could never be trusted" is wrongheaded, IMHO. Can Obama be trusted? Did he not also put self-interest over other interests during this election? Was not his very entry into the race, a race that would have resolved itself with much less rancor had he not gotten in, an act of self-interest?

See how easy this is?

As for twisting your words, I don't think I did, but I'm not trying to make debating points here. The fact is that many Obama supporters seem to have viewed this as a war, with the Obama the victor and Clinton the vanquished. But that is not how it works in politics. The fact is that right now, Obama is almost assured of the nomination, and Hillary holds the key to his future in her hands. She did not win the nomination, but she is not defeated in the sense of surrendering all. She has won considerable power.

Why on earth any supporter of Obama's would offend Hillary at this point by saying she could not be trusted is beyond me.  

that Obama and Clinton both fought hard, that politics is like war in some ways, that both sides have/had their more "extreme" supporters, but that in the end we're all Democrats?

I 100% agree with this, and I have been pretty clear since Pennsylvania that Obama is our guy.

If I argue too hard against some of these anti-Hillary posts, it is in the interests of challenging them early and often in the hopes that they can be nipped in the bud.

I think these posts and diaries that speak of elimination of Clinton and her supporters from the party, or that demonize Hillary, are counter-productive. If I thought by ignoring them they would die of their own accord, I would do so, but I think the best way to deal with them is to hold them up to the light of day, let people debate and consider their premises and their logical implications, and then decide if that is really how they want to go.  

is to prevent President McCain from appointing more Scalias, Thomases and Alitos to the Supreme Court.

The Court's more liberal members are much older than the conservative ones, except for Scalia, who is a vampire and actually a member of the Undead, so his age is irrelevant.

"Liberals"
Stevens is 88.
Ginsburg - 75
Souter - 69
Breyer - 70

Conservatives
Thomas - 60
Alito - 58
Roberts - 53
Scalia - 72

Swing/Conservative
Kennedy - 72

Assuming the next president serves 8 years, appointing 4 justices is not out of the realm of possibilities.  

Folks should just chill out a bit. I don't think anyone in this post came anywhere near suggesting that all Hillary supporters can't be trusted.

The suggestion that what is being said calls for the "elimination of Clinton" is way over the top. Finger wagging, flag waving over statements are ridiculous.  Aznew - calm down or you will have a stroke!

You say, "I don't think anyone in this post came anywhere near suggesting that all Hillary supporters can't be trusted," but a few posts above you wrote:

What I did say was that (in my opinion) Hillary and her more extreme supporters could never really be trusted.

My reference to the "posts and diaries that speak of elimination of Clinton and her supporters from the party" was a reference to this post by Spotter in another thread concerning the RBC in which she/he wrote:

Anybody who helps Hillary Clinton cheat should be targeted and eliminated.  Anybody who employs anyone who helps Hillary Clinton cheat should be targeted and eliminated.

(NOTE: I'm assuming Spotter meant eliminated from the Party only.)

Finally, I'm fairly calm, but I do appreciate your concern for my health.  

I meant from leadership positions, in the event that the Virginia leaders who have sway over this issue did not respect the clear, unquestioned view of the Virginia voters, who overwhelmingly chose Obama in Virginia.  I think I was quite clear on that, your attempts to misrepresent notwithstanding.  I stand by that statement.

As it happens, reason prevailed and a reasonable, if theoretically problematical, solution was reached.

Meanwhile, while preaching unity, you continue to misrepresent and to flog a dead horse.  Please give it up.  Nobody cares any more.  Hillary lost, fair and square, and all the posturing about all the "insults" she "unfairly" endured are quite beside the point.

This is a woman who only in the last couple of weeks was herself talking about "hard-working white Americans" and referencing the RFK assassination.  If you wanna go there, by all means go ahead, but the voters have spoken.  They have chosen Obama.  It is time for Clinton supporters to take action on all their rhetoric about unity and, hello, unify.

By the way, in all your complaints about Hillary's "unfair" treatment, you have been very circumspect about the race-baiting emanating from the candidate herself and from her campaign at every level.  Is this something you simply cannot defend, something you choose to ignore, or something that just doesn't matter to you?

Because it's something I take very, very seriously.  Anyone still supporting Hillary and still flogging why people inexplicably don't support her dead, dead campaign owe the rest of us DEMOCRATS an explanation as to how on earth they can call themselves Democrats and ignore the race-baiting.

We keep hearing how "we" cannot win and how "we" must "win over" Hillary supporters.  As far as I'm concerned, if they're willing to support a race-baiting candidate, they were never Democrats in the first place, as the video of this unfortunate woman clearly demonstrates.  These people need to go back to 1963, where they belong.  We are over these race issues, and are not going to revisit them, certainly not at the behest of the Clintons' failed campaign.  If the Democrats can't stand for something as straightforward as racial tolerance, there will be no Democratic party, because a lot of Democrats will be ex-Democrats.

of Clinton's lies - and yes, they are lies - about "winning the popular vote," see here:

You have to admire Hillary Clinton for her ability to reshape reality to her preferred outcome. She seems to assume that if she says something loudly enough, and repeats it often enough, it will become true....

THE FACTS

Whatever Clinton might say, there is considerable doubt about her claim to be "winning the popular vote." The only sense in which that is true is if she includes all the people who voted for her not only in Florida but also in Michigan, an election that she previously said "is not going to count for anything." She also has to exclude the 230,000 "uncommitted" voters in Michigan, most of whom would have probably supported Barack Obama had he been on the ballot, and caucus participants in four states -- Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington.

[...]

THE PINOCCHIO TEST

This is one of those cases where the candidate can provide some data to back up his or her claim, but the claim itself is essentially meaningless. To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, "the people have spoken" and they have chosen their candidate. That candidate is . . . Barack Obama.

And that's the truth! :)

The problem with citing an article like this, IMHO, is that it doesn't deal with facts, but with an argument. Yet, Dobbs then is able to adopt the pose of an impartial arbiter of "facts" and simply assert his argument as a fact, decreing the counter argument false.

Personally, I don't think Hillary has a very good argument here, but that is all it is, an argument, subject to rebuttal and counter-argument. You might disagree with her conclusion that she won the popular vote, but that is really because you disagree with her methodology. Show me where she intentionally alleged a fact that was false before tossing off the word "lies" so easily.

Given that, aren't you really relying upon the credibility of this writer, and the fact that his view is impartial and dispassionate in the sense of him not being in the camp of either candidate?

I think that's dangerous. Last week, this very same writer awarded Obama three Pinocchios (worse that this!) for his statement about his uncle liberating Auschwitz. He received a lot of criticism, and in response launched a tortured defense of his analysis so silly I won't even bother repeating it.

In point of fact, Obama made a minor mistake in describing what his uncle did. To even say that his statement was a fit subject for fact-checking is absurd, and a sop to some wing-nut websites who are hard at work seizing on every little gaffe to create the impression that Obama can't be trusted.

But, Lowell, according to the writer you so highly tout here, Obama is a worse liar than Hillary.

But why listen to me? Apparently, asking people to base arguments on actual facts instead of rants, or asserting that insulting Clinton supporters is not an effective way to heal the party, or admiring Mrs. Clinton for her effort or thinking Bill Clinton was the finest president we have had since JFK, well, that apparently makes me an overly-excited, race-baiter tolerating, about to have a stroke , racially intolerant Republican.  

...there's a TON going on besides the (shortly ending) Democratic nomination contest.  I'd love to hear your thoughts on the RPV's lurch to the right, the upcoming transportation special session, Tom Perriello vs. Virgil Goode, etc., etc.  Thanks.

Attack the messenger, again.

Give it up, aznew.

You expressed a lot of passionate feelings, which I recognize. I'm sorry you feel as you do, but there was simply no argument contained in your post.

That doesn't mean it wasn't interesting, but beyond acknowledging that you feel the way you do, there was simply nothing to which to respond.

P.S. I didn't attack the messenger, but the message, which was clearly the subject of that sentence. Had I been attacking the messenger, I would have written, "You are ranting, not arguing."  

Talk to this guy, please, about what you consider an "argument" and what you consider "a lot of passionate feelings."  Report back what you find.  We'll await your answer with baited breath.