I hate not being able to respect my party.  Where are all of the party faithful in outrage over the way she has been treated by the MSM?

 Why you keep insisting on twisting this truth.

I am sure it was all sweetness and light for Obama, right?

Come on, both sides have passionate partisan supporters.

The size of the population alone is enough to know we need better than a short-term Senator with no leadership over anything but a college publication (where his performance is unknown)to give us for qualifications.

1. I haven't seen sexism coming directly from the official Obama camp. While there has certainly been an anti-Clinton bias in some parts of the media -- ie Chris Matthews -- I'll leave it to others to determine if that's the result of sexism or just left over anti-Clinton bias from the '90s.

2. Obama's problem as a debater is, IMHO, because he is too intellectual, not because he falls short intellectually. I think he gets too wrapped up in dry wonk speak and loses sight of the need to deliver the memorable sound bite.

3. Historians will determine who played the race card. For many of us Obama supporters, it was Bill Clinton who was trying to brand Obama the "black candidate" to undermine his appeal to white voters after seeing the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. For Obama, it never made sense to play the race card because the upside of increasing the black vote was never enticing enough to risk the downside of alienating the white vote.

4. I don't think Obama has been any more divisive than he had to be. The only thing he's been guilty of is (a) winning primaries and caucuses; and (b) fighting back when attacked. The campaign only became negative during the Wisconsin primary when the Clinton campaign concluded that they were in too deep a hole to win with a high road strategy. When they launched the attack on Obama he had no choice but to respond in kind. If he had not struck back at Clinton he would have been derided as a wimp who would never survive the Republican attack in the fall. The Clinton campaign forced Obama to attack. And he acquitted himself well.

5. Barack Obama is no more an elitist than Hillary Clinton or John McCain. This is nothing more than a Republican talking point that the Obama campaign must be prepared to respond to.

1) Clinton's statement in South Carolina.  Interestingly Bill Clinton didn't make the argument that you made.  He made a different one, which was that winning South Carolina didn't guarantee you the nomination.  And of course it doesn't.  John Edwards won it previously.  But he didn't mention Edwards, nor the others who won the state, but didn't win the nomination.  He only mentioned Jesse Jackson, but yet he never mentioned race.  It was meant to imply that Obama is like Jackson in South Carolina.  

BTW, it's one thing for the media to say something, it's another thing for the ex-president of the country, party leader, wife of the candidate to say something.  How would you like it if Obama said some of the things that Chris Matthews says?  :-)

2. Hillary said something different than what you're implying.  If she would have said what you said, I'd completely agree.  The president implemented King's ideas.  She said "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson ...".  Emphasis is mine.  The emphasis is key, because it's important to note that Dr. King began to realize the dream far before Johnson was ever involved.  The Civil Rights Act was just part of the dream.  Go back and listen to the I Have a Dream speech.  Only a small portion is about legislation.  She tried to give Johnson credit for beginning and realizing a dream that was already in motion.  Johnson helped punctuate a part of it (albeit an important part), but she increased his contribution, and reduced all the work King did prior to the introduction of Johnson.

3. Ferraro's statement speaks for itself.  What if Obama said that Hillary wouldn't be where she is today if she was a male?  Or if she was a black female?  Or if she didn't ride the coattails of her husband?  I think one could make the argument that all three statements are true.  Nevertheless, I think those would be sexist statements, and one should be ashamed to utter them.  The fact that you think that Obama's possibly small advantage he has had during the past year, compensates with being a black male in this country shows you know very little of what black males go through.

If he is unable or (IMHO) unwilling to change their behavior, then he bears the consequence for it. We see those consequences directly in the growing numbers of dems who have pledged not to vote for him in the fall. We see those same consequences indirectly in his growing string of losses since February. Both of those numbers will only increase exponentially in the fall.

1600  - The ballot process isn't going as smoothly as planned.  I was under the assumption that we would be able to just go in, do our job, declare mission accomplished, and kick back in Crawford with a mojito and a joint.  This is quickly turning into a quagmire.  We are bogged down due to poor planning.  Hopefully, I will be able to leave the area in a hundred years.

...I'm going home soon.  I will have a beer, listen to Sloop John B., and never participate like this again.

Jeralyn did not declare that ALL Obama supporters are rank sexists; if you read carefully, you will see that she said the sexism was again present in the comments to her post on the Convention; judging by the comment quoted in J's post here, it would be hard to argue that it wasn't.

You either see and acknowledge the sexism quoted, and decry its existence even though it is coming from someone who supports the same candidate you do, or you hide behind false accusations that people like Jeralyn are branding ALL Obama supporters as sexists.

And at some point, I think you have to wonder why the candidate you support, and who has been running on a platform of unity and getting beyond our differences, has not only not come out against these kinds of divisive tactics, but has exhibited them himself on enough occasions that he cannot WORM out of it.

If you are at all interested in Democrtic party unity, that cause might be better served by going to the many pro-Obama blogs and sites and making a case for the end of the divisive tactics.  Something tells me they will turn on you no matter how strongly you state that you are an Obama supporter - and that should tell you pretty much everything you need to know about who and what is really tearing this party apart.

In addition, we consider ourselves to be politically astute in these matters with our knowledge of history, our superior education, our engagement of issues and policy and our comprehensive understanding of the political language.

Heck...it would've been nice if some Obama supporters hadn't started calling Chris Dodd a nut case and geezer back when Dodd was running.

But did y'all listen to Senator Feingold when he called for an end to the vitriol?

I don't recall that you did...indeed, it seems to me that it got much worse.

is there some sort of prerequisite of time spent, number of doors knocked on?  i do not think so.  it is more in line with woody allen, they showed up.

i support obama's open invitation to join the democratic party and to stir up the grass roots.  the thousands of new party arrivals vying for the delegate designation at the colorado state convention is one more example of this phenomenon.

congratulations to whomever was named.  let's get down to business and take down mcbush.