Hillary Clinton's Legacy

Two months ago I wrote about the emerging parallels between the bitterness of the current Democratic primary and the split between early white women's rights activists and abolitionists after the Civil War. With the campaign of Hillary Clinton sputtering to its final end, it is appropriate to revisit these issue and see if the disturbing parallels I pointed out have increased or decreased in relevancy since March.

Unfortunately, the historic parallels have only become stronger, and are nearly perfectly crystallized in yesterday's New York Times op-ed by Susan Faludi, the award-winning white feminist author, congratulating Clinton for running a campaign that has advanced the feminist movement in America:

In the final stretch of the primary season, [Clinton] seems to have stepped across an unstated gender divide...We are witnessing a female competitor delighting in the undomesticated fray. Her new no-holds-barred pugnacity and gleeful perseverance have revamped her image in the eyes of begrudging white male voters... It's the unforeseen precedent of an unprecedented candidacy... Not once has she demanded that the umpire stop the fight. Indeed, she's asking for more unregulated action, proposing a debate with no press-corps intermediaries. While the commentators have been tut-tutting, Senator Clinton has been converting white males, assuring them that she's come into their tavern not to smash the bottles, but to join the brawl. ... The strategy has certainly remade the political world for future female politicians, who may now cast off the assumption that when the going gets tough, the tough girl will resort to unilateral rectitude. When a woman does ascend through the glass ceiling into the White House, it will be, in part, because of the race of 2008, when Hillary Clinton broke through the glass floor and got down with the boys.

My original post comparing the present situation to that following the Civil War is included below. The short version is this: after the war, a major schism erupted among abolitionists over whether to campaign first to grant the vote to former (male) slaves, and then to press extend the vote to women (of all colors), or whether to fight for both at the same time. When it became clear that the majority of abolitionists favored pressing the black vote first, two of the most prominent white women's rights activists broke with the movement and began to campaign for white woman suffrage on explicitly racist grounds. They argued that giving white women the vote would protect the nation from the unsavory political influence of former slaves and Asian immigrants. The result was a split in the movement for woman suffrage that hobbled that movement for 50 years.

Faludi's argument fits into this historic parallel perfectly. Clinton, we are told, has done a favor for all American women by campaigning with "new no-holds-barred pugnacity" and "joining the brawl." Incredibly, Faludi neglects to mention the content of what Clinton's closest advisors referred to last week as her display of testicles: racism and war-mongering.

The day after the most recent primaries, Clinton told USA Today that she must continue because she has growing support among "working, hard working Americans. White Americans." It is worth your while to go to YouTube and hear this statement for yourself. When you hear her inflection, it comes off even worse than it does in print. She begins to say that Obama is losing support among "working" Americans, then pauses to specify what she is actually referring to is "hard working Americans," then pauses and specifies even more precisely "white" Americans. She then continues, noting that "whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

OK, Hillary, we hear you. As opposed to all those lazy blacks and do-nothing white college grads, you've got the support of the people who actually work hard in this country - uneducated white people. That is, in essence, exactly the appeal made by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton after the Civil War: the same argument, made to mobilize the same constituency.

The first time around, this agenda created a split in the movement for woman suffrage that would hobble the movement for 50 long years until American women finally won the right to vote in 1920. The whole sordid history is a painful chapter in American feminism that causes American feminists discomfort even today, nearly 150 years later. Some feminists have promoted Anthony and Stanton as historical heroines and role models, and in the 1970s Anthony became the first woman to appear on American money when the Susan B. Anthony dollar was minted. Other feminists strongly object, arguing that ignoring the racist legacy of these women only exacerbates the racial divisions that have plagued feminism in America.

But racism was not the only appeal on which Clinton based what Faludi sees as her effort to "remake the political world for future female politicians." The other was war. In order to convince those uneducated white voters that she had sufficient testosterone to be Commander-in-Chief-from-Day-One, she flatly stated that she would have no qualms about "obliterating" another country, leading her confidant James Carville to state that if Hillary gave Obama one of her balls, "they'd both have two."

This statement, coming from a leading presidential candidate in the only country in the world to ever have used nuclear weapons, was so egregious that it merited a rebuke from the Secretary General of the United Nations. I cannot remember another time when any world leader in any country, trying to drum up last minute votes in an election, made a statement so outrageous as to draw comment from the UN Secretary General.

So, no, I cannot agree with Faludi that Clinton's "strategy has certainly remade the political world for future female politicians." It is simply not news that a female politician who outdoes the guys in appeals to race and war can be successful. Think Margaret Thatcher. The fact that she ran on a machine largely created by her husband, whom she regularly employed to wallow in a gutter even lower than that to which she herself had sunk, makes Faludi's argument even more ludicrous. Incredibly, in Faludi's entire article summing up the political impact of the Clinton campaign, the words "Bill," "William," and "husband" do not appear. Clinton has not even withdrawn yet and the re-writing of history has already begun.

Here is my post from March:

The recent behavior of the Clinton campaign and its allies has disturbing parallels in the earliest days of the woman suffrage movement. Then, in the face of a short-term set-back, the most prominent woman suffrage campaigners broke with the abolitionist movement and espoused explicitly racist politics. The result was a debilitating split in the movement for woman suffrage, and a half century of defeat.

The women in question are Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Like other early women's rights advocates, Stanton and Anthony initially became politically active in the abolitionist movement, and through this activism began formulating an increasingly articulate feminist agenda (though the word "feminism" was not available to them at the time).

The civil war put women's rights on hold, as abolitionist women threw their energies into the union war effort. After the war, the question of voting rights for freed slaves moved to the top of the national agenda. Slavery was ended, but whether the freed slaves would be granted the full rights of citizens, and most particularly the right to vote, was anything but certain. To Stanton and Anthony, the debate on voting rights was an open door for a push to extend the vote to all adult citizens regardless of race or gender. They took it as given that the political coalition which had achieved abolition and was now poised to campaign for the Fourteenth Amendment would see things the same way. It was inconceivable to them that the nation might grant the vote to black men yet leave black women - and white women - disenfranchised.

Most abolitionist leaders, including prominent white women such as Lucy Stone, took an opposite tack, arguing that it was the "Negro's hour" and women would have to wait. In their view, while black suffrage and woman suffrage might be linked logically, the political reality was that the fight for black male suffrage would be a difficult one, and complicating the matter by raising woman suffrage would put the fruits of the tremendous sacrifices of the civil war in jeopardy. Victory for black suffrage, they argued, would open the door for women, whereas a defeat for black suffrage would close all possibility of enlarging the franchised population for years to come. Those advocating this course included movement superstars William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, both of whom had consistently been far ahead of the pack in their support of female abolitionists formulating a program for women's rights.

The issue came to a head in 1867 in Kansas, where citizens were asked to vote simultaneously on two separate constitutional amendments, one enfranchising black men, the other women. The outcome would finally decide the debate over whether the political rights of slaves would be defined as the "[male] Negro's hour" or a "more complete democracy." With so much on the line, the split between those campaigning for just one or both amendments became predictably bitter. On election day black suffrage won, while woman suffrage lost overwhelmingly.

The real political catastrophe, however, was not this set-back but the ugly politics that ensued. What had begun as a principled disagreement with reasoned arguments on both sides degenerated into a political debacle as one side in the debate refused to accept that its position would lose. Stanton and Anthony had been the most prominent woman suffrage campaigners in the Kansas election, and as they sensed victory slipping beyond their reach they tried to shore up their prospects by reaching out to racists. They developed a close relationship with a flamboyant racist named George Francis Train, who stumped for them around the state. Attacks on the intelligence of blacks were fundamental to Train's standard appeal, and he employed them as an argument for voting rights for women. The collaboration between two top woman suffragists and such a blatant racist horrified many other suffragists. Stanton and Anthony shocked their friends by refusing to budge in the face of withering criticism. "So long as opposition to slavery is the only test for your platform," Stanton angrily wrote to the abolitionists, "why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our platform and association, even though they be rabid pro-slavery?"

The following year, Stanton, Anthony and Train launched the Revolution, a newspaper which broke much new ground for women's rights in America, discussing prostitution, infanticide, sex education, cooperative housekeeping. But the paper also carried on with explicitly racist appeals to white women. "American women of wealth, education, virtue, and refinement," Stanton warned, "If you do not wish the lower orders of Chinese, Africans, Germans and Irish, with the low ideas of womanhood to make laws for you and your daughters, ... to dictate not only the civil, but moral codes by which you shall be governed, awake to the danger of your present position."

Thus began a split in the movement for woman suffrage that would hobble the movement for 50 long years until American women finally won the right to vote in 1920. The whole sordid history is a painful chapter that causes American feminists discomfort even today. Some feminists have promoted Anthony and Stanton as historical heroines and role models, and in the 1970s Anthony became the first woman to appear on American money when the Susan B. Anthony dollar was minted. Other feminists have strongly objected, arguing that ignoring the racist legacy of these women only exacerbates the racial divisions that have plagued feminism in America.

The parallels with today are obvious. As the Clinton campaign began to feel the chances of Hillary Clinton becoming the first female president slip away, the campaign has resorted to increasingly racist appeals. One wonders if, decades from now, Hillary Clinton will be a hero in the feminist pantheon or, like Stanton and Anthony, a reminder of a painful episode that future feminists will prefer to forget.

For more on this history, see my recent book, People's Movements, People's Press: The Journalism of Social Justice Movements (Beacon Press, 2006).

Comments

[SaddieMcCall]

Hillary loves to promote herself as a fighter, and how she fights for "you" (whoever that is), but she didn't have sufficient self esteem or self respect to stand up to her own friends/su­rrogates/s­upporters to assert the fact that women do not require male anatomy to be strong. (You don't even have to be a dirty fighter to prove strength). Hillary stood alongside of the men (smiling, laughing) as they insulted not only her, but all women with their ridiculous comments. How does she expect to stand up for women, when she can't even stand up for herself.

[ornovscot]

Thank you for an informative essay. I did not know that the UN General Secretary rebuked Senator Clinton for some remarks she recently made. That does seem rather unprecedented.

What a pity it is that Susan Faludi praises the divisive and negative behavior of Senator Clinton and portrays that behavior as positive and as a contribution to feminism. There are many great women who deserve to be President of this country; it is clear to many that Senator Clinton is not one of those women. Indeed, I would find Ms. Clinton's tendency to personalize her criticisms and her pandering as offensive in any candidate regardless the gender of that candidate.

Whether this gentlewoman is elected President, it is clear that she has polarized more persons since this campaign began. Should she become President she will accomplish much of the same result, exasperating and accentuating those divisions. How doing that is a benefit to this country or even to the cause of feminism is a mystery to me.

[ornovscot]

That is excellent. There are many ways for women or men to show strength. There are deeper forms of strength.

One form of strength derives not from a sense having to find approval from or validation through others.

It's exemplified by avoiding as much as possible all wars. It isn't exemplified by saying that one would advocate obliterating a nation, evoking the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's exemplified by an inner peace that doesn't find it necessary to attack and hurt others.

[bluevillage]

Thank you for a very fine recap of this important chapter in our history.

[TheKnownTruth]

Great in sight. This is history repeating itself.

When this started I was all for Hillary. I did still have in the back of my mind the seedy side Bill brought to the Whitehouse. I was however willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Although I had switched to Obama, I noticed a number of signs that things were not going right, the biggest was the money, lies, and the racial over/undertones. The AP thing broke the camels back.

I and many others need to ask ourselves what is plan "B" if Obama is not the nominee. Hold our nose and vote for Hillary?

[Suzie813]

That might have been possible for me at one point, but now I don't see how I can. She was my preference to begin with, but the more I have seen of Hillary the less attractive she has become. If she somehow manages to steal the nomination at this late date I am not sure how I will be able to reconcile myself to settling for her.

[ZenNonna]

Thorn I have re-read the posts on this article and I do not see what you refer to. In fact the people posting here are not name calling or getting personal.
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-------
Your post:
Does every single post here need to start with "something I did" or "someone I met"? It's getting downright pathetic. Do people here have such a desperate need for attention? I guess this is the place to work it out.

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­------

Am I getting senile or what are you talking about

[Bluesue]

Very interesting history lesson.

I don’t know why Faludi thinks Clinton has done something noteworthy for future female candidates - candidates for any elective office. What Hillary showed was that she had to emulate those white men before she began to win them over. She had to become gun-totin’ and hard-drinkin’ before they would accept her. She had to talk tough before they would accept her. How does that promote the feminist cause? How does the inability to accept reality promote the feminist cause?

Then they conferred upon her their highest appellation - “She’s got b****.” In fact, according to Carville, she has extras. How does this promote the feminist cause.

So now Hillary has to further divide us. I wouldn’t take issue with her saying that she has more white voters or that white women over 65 support her in greater numbers. I do take offense at describing them as “hardworking Americans.” What are the rest of us? Lazy Americans? Or perhaps not even true Americans?

I believe feminists are in denial when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

[ornovscot]

Indeed. I think there are many great women who would make exceptional Presidents. I wish more persons could see beyond a narrower perspective and imagine how likely it is that, as President, Senator Clinton will not significantly reverse course in Iraq, for example, and that she will further polarize a country already divided by war and other conditions.

[S1m0n]

Faludi, Steinem, Ferraro, the NY Chapter of NOW...

It's quite a roll of dishonor.

[lynnn]

Emily's list as well.

[Maxiesid]

I would love to know when it will finally be admitted that Hillary lost the nomination, not because she is a woman, but because she was a woman that allowed her male advisors to convince her that she needed 'to get down with the boys' in order to prove herself. The showing up to be part of the brawl, etc is exactly what turned many of us away from her. Not because we think women should 'recede into rectitude' but because we wanted her to run as the best WOMAN for the job. Not a woman who wants to prove that she is really one of the boys, only in a woman's body. Obama stayed above the brawl at all times, and the comparison did not show her in a very good light. To insist that Hillary lost because she is a woman is a lovely excuse, but it doesn't hold any water. She lost because she was dishonest, pandering, and never took the high road when there was a low road to take. When you sat back and compared Hillary, McCain and Obama, there was only one of them that promises to be different than what we have suffered with for the last eight years. It could have been Hillary.. in fact, it SHOULD have been Hillary. But it wasn't and she only has herself to blame.

[TheKnownTruth]

Amen

[vaughan]

I've gotta agree here 100 percent

[classof77]

Obama has not stayed "above the brawl at all times," and whenever he did appear to stay "above the brawl," his surrogates were in the trenches slinging mud with the best of the basest. Maxiesid's comments typify your run-of-the-mill Obama supporter--in total denial that her candidate is just a politician. A politician with a good, progressive agenda, granted, but just a politician nevertheless, and an inexperienced one at that. Maxiesid and her ilk are completely blind to his distortion of his rivals' words, his dissembling, his political maneuvering, and above all, his playing the race card time and time again during this campaign. Get real. Every candidate who has ever run for president has promised "change." The last one who did is still in office, unfortunately.

Hillary isn't losing because she's "just a woman," whatever that means. She's losing because of the insidious, inbred misogyny that permeates every aspect of modern American life, that Maxiesid and her cohort are too oblivious, too unquestioning, and too uncritical to come even close to discerning. Hillary didn't need to "get down with the boys" in order to prove herself. She had to be orders of magnitude tougher, brighter, and better prepared than the boys. And even then people like Maxiesid can't support their own candidate except by rabid, illogical attacks on Hillary.

[IslandGyal]

classof77,
D-E-N-I-A-L is not only a river in Egypt, LMAO!

[NorVaGal]

classof77: Based on your rationale, I guess Obama is winning (or losing) because he is black, and John McCain is winning (or losing) because he is older. My rationale is that Hillary is losing because she started fighting dirty and many people did not like it. It happens to lots of politicians. Gutter brawls appeal to some, but not to others.

If there was such an "insidious, inbred misogyny" as you state, then why aren't only the male candidates left in the race? If only blacks are voting for Obama, why aren't only the white candidates left in the race? No, I think it's something much more.

Here's some advice. Reread the article and comments above. Then, pick the one that sounds RABID. You may be surprised to find that it is your own.

[lynnn]

She lost bc she didnt understand the times. This whole election was predicted in 2004 in the book "The World is Flat". It was a best seller.

[mawrm]

Misogyny? Here's a little exercise for you - I want you to count the number of WOMEN in the Senate today. Go ahead, count them up. Now count the number of blacks in the Senate. Okay, next exercise, count the number of women governors around the country. Then count the number of black governors in power across the nation - note that Patterson in NY was not elected.
So after you complete this exercise, tell us a bit more about the "misogyny" in America...

BTW, Bush did not run on promising "change" but restoring dignity to the White House and the office of the President. If he and his Republican ilk were able to run on that and win, why do you think the results will be any different with McCain versus Hillary Clinton?

[Maxiesid]

I couldn't resist.... where in my post did I say 'just a woman" ? I went back to reread it because I couldn't imagine that I would ever use those words together, and I didn't find it there. You throw words around like you have no idea what they mean, or worse like a person in a fit of anger that becomes incoherent the longer they rant. Really, 'inbred, insidious mysogyny'? Some Clinton supporters, and I mean a very small amount, seem to think that no one is paying attention to what is going on but themselves. I said Obama stayed above the fray and you want to point to his 'surrogates in the trenches, flinging mud' and 'distorting his rival's words' with absolutely no instances of when this happened. When you only look at the facts you find that Hillary's own words are the most damning evidence against her, not anything that anyone else might say. Her statement that only she and McCain passed the 'leadership test'; the story of her memories repeated over and over again of her landing under gunfire in Bosnia, it goes on and on (space limits keep me from listing more). It doesn't take an oblivious, unquestioning or even uncritical Obama supporter or their 'ilk' to discern that she has a very loose relationship with the truth, it only takes a rabid Clinton supporter that denies that any of that happened.

[JAJ2007]

I have always wondered if some of the seeming "multiple personality disorder" of the Clinton campaign has to do with infighting between her female advisors and her male advisors. (e.g. one day saying "I'm proud to be here with Barack" [TX debate] and the next day ranting "Shame on you")

I think Senator Clinton is a much better person when she is true to herself, which I understand from listening to comments of those close to her (non-pundits) and those who have me her, is warm, with a good sense of humor, and a strong sense of herself.

I think she was very ill-served by Mark Penn (in particular) and Howard Wolfson. I wonder what her campaign would have been like if she's listened more to the women's voices in her campaign, and less to the pollsters. I thought at the beginning of this campaign that I knew who Senator Clinton was. I would have been thrilled if she were elected president (despite her not being my candidate). However, I no longer recognize her, and I don't know any longer what motivates her. She's almost become a parody of a woman pretending to be a man. She did well when she allowed herself to be a woman, and behaved like a grown-up. Now, she's acting like a spoiled brat.

[obamagirl1968]

Anyone interested in the history behind these articles, please read "When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America" by Paula Giddings. This book discusses the dynamics of the suffrage movement from the point of view of Black women who ultimately chose race over sex, the same pattern being seen in this presidential contest between a Black man and a White woman.

[NorVaGal]

I've been conflicted as to which dynamic is MOST at play in this election. At first, it seemed that gender was trumping-- women have waited decades to see the ultimate glass ceiling broken. Often, in discussions with other women, that appeared to be the most often cited reason for supporting Sen. Clinton. Also, African -Americans, in general, were aligned 2-1 pro-Clinton prior to the SC primary. Then, Bill made the remark that was interpreted as insulting to black voters and an effort to diminish Sen. Obama's win in SC. The tide began to change. As more blacks shifted to Sen. Obama, the Clintons intensified their courtship of blue collar whites, to offset those losses. Voila!! Race took center stage.

Whether Bill's statement was accidentally or intentionally defamatory to blacks, I do know that it sounded derogatory to me. And, I believe that Hillary's campaign, since then, has deliberately fanned racial tensions among demographics that long have been resistant to and unaccepting of racial parity. So, it seems that what started out pro-gender has now become about race-baiting and has descended to a wallow in America's shameful, lowest gutter.

Sadly, the majority of the "hard-working WHITE Americans" that Hillary has sold her soul to the devil for will vote Republican in November, as they always have and probably always will. If blacks feel that the nomination is unfairly awarded to HRC, they, too will abandon the Dem party on Election Day. Either way, America loses AGAIN.

[DietrichMoody]

Hillary and her surrogates - are for the most part free thinkers who want to change the world the way they see it . They've spent their lifetime, categorizing people - for political affect. However, wrongly. Meaning, for them "Republicans are racist", "Acting like a Man is acting tough all the time, blah blah blah", "white (men) just want war", etc. All these couldn't be further from the truth. Unfortunately, for Clinton surrogates, they have molded into these falsehood BEHAVIORS, themselves. Why? inorder to capture the hearts and minds of these people they think they know and want to be like, for poltical affect, again. Or maybe it's Stockholm's syndrome. Whatever, I think all of this accounts with Obession with "toughness", BALLS, etc. Well, if Hillary was so tough, why didn't she run for Congress in her 30's, more importantly, why couldn't she do MORE with the POWER she had as a lawmaker and or wife of a President. When you look at it, she's done nothing with her power, especially as a woman. I guess her and her President husband, have been DO NOTHING white college grads for some time now. Nonetheless, the Faludi's can continue to EMBARASS themselves, what the thinkings of yesteryear. However, you cannot mold a woman, to be President of the USA, by attributing the WORST qualities of some white, black, brown, and yellow men. What these women, and some men need to do is allow themselves go through the identity crisis, I am sure

[nsiah7]

This is a fantastic piece of article. I hope a lot of Americans would wake and understand that Clinton is still in the race not because she thinks she can win the nomination but because Obama is black and she is hoping for a "natural disaster" that her prejudiced mind thinks happens to all black people. Clinton is actually playing the race card and whoever thinks otherwise does not know who a racist is.
Thank you again, this is a wonderful piece.

[veracity]

yep. She (HTP) actually invoked (sigh) Bobby Kennedy and 1968 as an excuse to stay in the race. For real, the day after North Carolina. (Weds.) Disgusting. Your comment caught that one!

[Countess]

Those feminists like Faludi and Clinton who accept racism and a blatantly neocon posture in foreign policy are as reactionary as the right wing and pose an extreme danger to the democratic party and to America. They are fanning the flames of racism in order to win votes and menacing other countries in order to prove they have balls. They are really sick and the democratic party leadership should tell them in very clear terms that this kind of racist garbage will not be tolerated. They should join the Klan or the republican party where they will feel more comfortable.

[Gma11]

I thought Faludi was much more grounded in reality than it appears she actually is. Yeesh!! The woman she describes is the kind I want to bury deep in the ground with a stake in the heart. She is describing monsters, not any of the kind of women I desire to associate with.

And certainly not the kind of women I want my daughters and granddaughters to be.

[Obamamo]

Clinton's campaign has been pursuing a fairly obvious, but settled strategy of having surrogates attack Obama while the campaign itself denies any involvement. As Josh Marshall wrote:

“We seem to be at the point where there are now two credible possibilities. One is that the Clinton campaign is intentionally pursuing a strategy of using surrogates to hit Obama with racially-charged language or with charges that while not directly tied to race nonetheless play to stereotypes about black men. The other possibility is that the Clinton campaign is extraordinarily unlucky and continually finds its surrogates stumbling on to racially-charged or denigrating language when discussing Obama.”

There has been an entire string of these "gaffes" from Clinton surrogates. What we have here is a deliberately planned campaign of smear and outright racism.

[WasteNJ]

--"What we have here is a deliberately planned campaign of smear and outright racism."

Maybe a little of both? Desperate times breed desperate measures. Nobody stoops to racial pandering as their Plan A, maybe this is Clinton's Plan Z. The problem for her is, there's no turning back. Hillary has salted the earth from which the Black vote grows.

[myskylark]

You are wrong. When you listen to Clinton's statement to USA it is clear that when referring to the AP poll she added "hard working" because that's what all politicians say about blue collar workers, and when she added "white Americans" it was not to demean black workers as lazy, but to distinguish between black and white workers because black workers were not among her supporters.

It's so typical of Obama supporters to always look for a sinister motive in anything either Clinton says. You people are disgraceful. If John McCain winds up getting my vote it will be because there is no end to the stupid, vicious, untrue accusations Obama supporters keep making aboutr my candidatge

[patrice37]

Wow, for vicious, untrue accusations about your candidate, well, perhaps you've forgotten McCain's joke about Chelsea? Look it up. He's all class, eh? Or, wait, I'm forgetting that you'd rather cast your vote on the basis of a candidate's "supporters" -- in which case, I'm sure McCain's supporters will impress you with the high-minded, nuanced approach so favored by Republicans.

Please, I know you're disappointed in the results of the primary campaign. But now it's time to think about what kind of president you want.

[jsq]

If McCain gets your vote, it will be because you have made the decision that a white man, no matter how lying, conniving, cheating, or dangerous he is to women's issues will be a better choice than the black man who won the contest fair and square. And that says much more about you and all of Hillary's supporters who make the same choice than it does about Obama.

[classof77]

Wow myskylark, no sooner do you post your comments than jsq offers a perfect example of what you were talking about! It's like fishing in a barrel, isn't it? Except the stupid, vicious, and untrue comments are directed at you rather than Hillary this time. Besides being inexperienced, sometimes immature, and having a general lack of well-articulated policy, I don't really see much to object to in Obama. It's his supporters that will drive me to write in Hillary's name in November rather than vote for their candidate.

[Mesaywar]

You were right then, and you are right now. Excellent posts. Excellent.

[MPeter]

She and her husband have got dementia. They have become such a joke, they need to be stopped. The Obama mobile has left the station and cannot be stopped. Here is what happened today:
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among superdelegates Saturday when he added more endorsements from the group of Democrats who will decide the party's nomination for president.

Obama added superdelegates from Utah and Ohio, as well as two from the Virgin Islands who had previously backed Clinton. The additions enabled Obama to surpass Clinton's total for the first time in the campaign. He had picked up nine endorsements Friday.

The milestone is important because Clinton would need to win over the superdelegates by a wide margin to claim the nomination. They are a group that Clinton owned before the first caucus, when she was able to cash in on the popularity of the Clinton brand among the party faithful.

Those party insiders, however, have been steadily streaming to Obama since he started posting wins in early voting states.

"I always felt that if anybody establishes himself as the clear leader, the superdelegates would fall in line," said Don Fowler, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.