Understand your post, position and passion. I know Africa pretty well and am amazed how little of the reporting focused on the work of the Foundation. For example, there are seven new hospitals being built, and, at last, home delivery of HIV medicine is routine because patient can't walk or get to the clinics. If you know that roads in Africa's countryside are really pathways this is a huge story for those at the receiving end. Bill Gates and others are doing wonderful work in malaria treatment and prevention.

What I would like to know is why Kate Snow of ABC did not make much of the work, even writing about the pluses and minuses, but instead sought to get Pres Clinton to respond to politics back home. One can say Bill should have given her a smart No Comment. But his genes tell me that is impossible. But I recognise that journalists (like Kornblut) live for reporting on gutter politics.

I despair of Democrats. They are never very good at working together. They leak. All these Democrat strategists and policy wonks who are currently unemployed have only this: eager eared journalists.

I criticized Clinton for the "hardworking Americans, white Americans" gaffe.

When? What I remember is you saying:

I honestly don't think she was defining "hardworking Americans" as white, or signaling to whites who are uncomfortable with Obama for racial reasons that she's their candidate. She was trying to explain the context of Republicans since Richard Nixon grabbing this group, and how important it is to get some of them back (and I agree). But I also understand why some people heard her remarks differently.

And then equating what Hillary said to Donna Brazile saying:

"A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bath water."

Which you somehow took to mean that the Democrats should exclude white blue-collar voters and Hispanics, rather than the far clearer message that the tent has to be bigger than just two population groups.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/05/09/democrats_and_race/index.html

Bill Clinton gave us:

the best economy in 50 years.

the lowest crime rate in 50 years.

stopped the Balkans war and caught Milosevic.

helped bring peace to Ireland.

helped Aristide return to power in Haiti until Bush II continued the coup his father started.

I know that can't compare to all of Obama's accomplishments such as: um, ah.....well there must be some reason people are voting for him. Oh yeah, the media and corrupt Democratic caucus told them to.

Your post at 10:02 pm Thursday said it so perfectly. I won't repeat your thoughts. I would like to add however, that I think the labels "racist" and "sexist" and the like are much overused and misused, as well.

What Bill Clinton did, when he compared Jesse Jackson's success with Senator Obama's success, was prejudiced, not racist, IMHO. He used a similar characteristic, the color of their skin, or their race, if you must, to pre-judge, without thought, the basis for their success in South Carolina, where they are both similar in race to a large portion of the population. The fact that he used this comparison and pre-judgment to demean Obama's success could be labeled racist, I suppose, but since most of us don't believe the Clintons to be racist, it was more likely prejudice (which most human beings suffer from, including you, Joan, on issues related to gender at least) combined with arrogance and an attempt to belittle Obama.

As far as the continued dog whistles used by the Clinton camp when discussing poor Obama's difficulty with "white, hard-working, white Americans" and Hispanics, well, that was just pure opportunism, meanness and desperation. I don't think it means the Clintons are racist, but that they were willing to use other people's racism for their benefit. That might even be worse than actual racism, because it breeds and foments division and hatred.

Joan, as many, many people have begged you to do, please take some time for self-reflection and GET OFF THIS SOAP BOX!

It is time for Joan, and every progressive, to look towards the future and remember that Senator Obama is now our leader and he is the one deserving and needing our respect and support. The Clintons need to take the second chair and show some humility and dignity and, yes, respect!

As for Senator Clinton's claim that her people need "catharsis" it made me cringe. The angry Clinton supporters who are claiming they need catharsis, and most of them are women, are embarrassing themselves and acting like the hysterical overly emotional stereotype that the word "hysterical" is based on. Be grown ups and move-on and do the right thing for your party, your nation and progressive ideas!

I checked. You weren't there.

Then I remember that I had looked up your archives last week when you were berating me about something and that's what cued my memory.

Have you even looked at my archives and how many posts I have directed in reply to other people? I respond to lots of people and cannot remember them all, but I will remember you now.

I think you are wrong that Hillary would be speaking at the convention if she hadn't run. However, I also think that Obama acts rather strangely towards her. I have seen many photos in which he was staring at the back of her head with a very cold expression and a strange intensity -- as if he were a boll weeval and she were a fluff of cotton. Trust me on this: He has issues with her -- maybe because when he was first in the Senate he sucked up to her, asked advice, and enjoyed a bit of mentoring. Then he turned around and ran against her. I am not saying that is unworthy necessarily. After all, people have to look after their own ambitions. Sometimes people can't bear to owe anything to their rivals.

I never seriously thought he would let her on the ticket or will ever unless he thinks he just can't win any other way. I don't really think it has much to do with Bill. On the other hand, Bill probably has issues with Obama over the race stuff and for reasons I outlined earlier. That whole Bill is a racist meme didn't happen by accident. They were looking for something they could twist. I absolutely believe that Obama planned all along to lay a racial charge against the Clintons if he had the slightest opportunity.

Later, I think the Clintons may have decided to get back at him a bit. I don't blame them.

On our previous discussion:

You go back and read that thread and all my letters in it and you will see I was arguing for women holding out for real political gains for women's issues specifically. You will see that I mentioned a revival of committment to the Equal Rights Amendment. It's not just about anger. It's about feminism and women getting certain political gains. In one thread, I had a whole list of things that I thought women should demand from Barack Obama, including a change in the way that social security is computed for women who have spent time at home caring for children or other family members.

Just so you will know: If you get as annoying as Klytus, you will be on my ignore list too. For instance, the polite thing to do would be to take my word for it when I say that I don't hate Obama. One can be quite critical of someone and still not hate them. I don't even hate George W. Bush. I don't waste my time hating people I don't know.

I just don't think Obama is ready to be president. That said, I don't think McCain should be president either. He's too old.

Now I just know someone is going to say that is ageist, but just as we have age you have to reach to be president, I think we might consider an age that might be too old without a mental status test.

Okay. I'm wiped out. I'm going to bed. A family problem was worrying me tonight and I needed the diversion. I couldn't have slept anyway.

Thanks for the joust.