@taritac: re: Joan conflates Obama with his supporters, and internalizes criticism from people like me or (god help me this makes me have some sympathy for Joan) idiots like David Sugarman.

Yes.

That is her M.O. At best, writer of intellectually dishonest screeds and at worst incoherent and confused screeds. She has taken it personally, and has built out of clay a totem of Barack Obama, a fictional burlesque of the man and his exemplary campaign which she nightly tears down in a fit of misplaced rage.

Sorry to get all pop psychiatry on you, but that's how I see it.

@aka: once again I totally agree with you, Barack Obama should not bother to "reach out" to the poor wounded Clinton-supporting "pity party." I see no indication that Obama does not in spirit if not in deed support many of the planks your bring up, although to bring up the spectre of the ERA in a campaign against the modern Republican party might be a political non-starter (or maybe it would be something Obama can and will pull off, I don't know). So, for Obama to swing too far in the direction of identity politics might be a mistake on his part, especially when he's already exposed himself to attacks from the right that would paint him as socialist for questioning the High Holy Truth of corporate citizenship in America by coming out against lobbyists and painting labor issues (correctly) as a struggle between the common worker and Big Evil Corporations.

(The conflation of socialism to communism to Labor in politics over the last 60 years has been one of the greatest successes and most nefarious fictions of the pro-Corporate right in American politics. Old money will never forgive the American public for two things: the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Labor Movement. The right has used those as successful wedge issues since at least World War II.)

Anywho, we agree but for probably vastly different reasons. I'm sorry your gal didn't win and I look forward to standing with you in support of Obama come November. No hard feelings, I hope.

It's okay, you can single me out by name:

I have been appalled by the sexist comments, and the support for sexist comments on this and other "left wing" boards. Ms. Walsh has been reviled personally, and I noted that one poster was congratulating himself for retreating from "ad hominem" attacks against Sen. Clinton. (Wow!) The whole idea has been that if you DON'T LIKE SOMEONE, it's OKAY to resort to sexist slurs. NO, get a clue! You can't resort to sexist slurs, or racist slurs, no matter WHAT THE OTHER PERSON HAS DONE! It's wrong, it's despicable, it is not justified by actions of the person with whom you disagree. Racist/sexist/homophobic slurs and attacks are never okay. Get it?

Fair enough, but what does that have to do with Obama and anyone's unwillingness to vote for him, or Clinton and unwillingness to vote for her for that matter.

Sure, I called Hillary Clinton a whore: it was a metaphor for her support of the AUMF, seemingly for political capital. It was over the line, and I apologized. I've heard my roommate and sister say much more direct and pointed things, some of which I dare not repeat unless I want a visit from the US Treasury. We're frustrated, we vent. We cross the line, and if we are humble enough we acknowledge the fact that we spun out of control and apologize and hope for forgiveness or at least understanding.

That said, the man himself has nary a disparaging word to say about the Senator from New York. AKA Smith lists a litany of supposed slants and I say, well, maybe you are splitting hairs.

This is a political campaign, and no one can win by being all kittens and roses all the time; on the other hand, it is my opinion, and that of many other observers, that Clinton and her proxies have crossed the line on many occasion, have gave no quarter, have acted like two year olds on a tirade and then turned around and, again, like a child, threatened to go tell mommy or daddy if anyone looked at them sideways.

I won't defend Chris Matthews (but I will defend Olbermann), but to suggest that Obama somehow has to atone for Matthews idiocy, or my own, is patently unfair and absurd.

There are two words for this kind of hostage taking: passive aggressive. You want to punish me for hurting your feelings by not voting for the candidate I favor? Fine. That's passive aggressive and it's childish. And its stupid, stupid, stupid.

I don't mean that to be ad hominem, I mean it as a statement of fact. Vote out of self interest, not out of spite.

Tonight's winner is "jonathanseer"!

Congratulations, jonathanseer, you can go back to LGF or rushlimbaugh.com and tell them you only lasted one post before you were found out.

G'nite.

Well, she signed away the lives of over 4,000 Americans, and I find that offensive. So, sorry if some people have been mean to her. She's a murderer by proxy.