you wrote here:

Chris Matthews forgetting he is or ever was a journalist - and that men get scared thing Wilson references. But Matthews is only the most obvious example of this media-ready explosion of expression, and the netroots have plenty of upshoots in the same vein...

Yet, what confounds me most in the continuation and choice of actions determined by defiance is understanding how voters who are otherwise intelligent and rational in choosing an excellent candidate in Hillary Clinton can now become individuals who will ignore the illogic behind their continued push toward goals that are not, even in a Dennis Kucinich world, achievable.

And I'm someone who wrote, repeatedly, about letting these voters have their say, get it out, be listened to and learned from. Even as the reality became then and is now that Hillary Clinton is not going to be president this year.

Not.Gonna.Happen.

And now, disruption, protests and stunts, especially in the face of strong statements from Clinton herself, project nothing but pure narcissism.

Then I see you pulled the same video as I did.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Barack Obama has obviously had problems with key groups of voters who fit into the demographic buckets you describe -- otherwise he wouldn't have lost 18 million primary voters to Hillary Clinton.

My point is that, in the context of day two of the Democratic National Convention, "whether she's personally responsible or not, Sen. Hillary Clinton is emerging as a massively divisive force for Democrats seeking the support of women who vote, if their blogs are any indication."

Yesterday my working theory was that this Hillary vs. Barack delegate issue was cooked up by the media and the media only. This wasn't too much of a mental leap to anticipate mainstream media would exploit the angle, given their abuse of Sen. Clinton during the primaries.

However, my reading of blogging by women who blog both at and outside of the DNC Denver is proving otherwise. Sure, the RNC is making hay off it. But loyal, devoted Democratic delegates from both sides are upset, even angry, and the Democrats need to pull them together. Even Sen. Clinton's clear, irrefutable articulation of her support for Sen. Obama (see video clip above) hasn't nipped this in the bud.

I'm interested in your opinion, as someone who has spoken at conventions and been a partisan leader, about what you think the Democrats need to do to bring the party together? And I confirm that I've read what you said above about it all coming together in November -- as well as this excerpt from your blog post:

There’s much to celebrate this Women’s Equality Day. But John McCain’s inherently anti-woman agenda places in sharp relief that there is ever so much more unfinished business we must still act upon every day going forward. I anticipate Hillary Clinton’s speech will urge us convincingly to see our way clear to do exactly that.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

They may well be confident in Clinton, and with good reason.  But they are missing that many are not confident that Obama will be good for women.  It doesn't matter if they are wrong -- that's the sense many have that his campaign must address.

http://www.blogher.com/obama-advisor-valerie-jarrett-talks-women-voters-blogher-video

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers aren't! Follow our coverage of the 2008 political conventions

There's so much truth to all these perspectives! Argh. :)

Which confounds me even more - because I feel as though what we're witnessing is this intense clash between elements of the system we've built, supported, desired and are also, all at the same time, trying to change/improve.

For example - we believe in party unity.  But we believe in one vote, one person - and that we shouldn't ever pressure people to do as we believe they should.  And yet, on that third hand, we believe that since we have a two-party system, and we don't want a government that will crumble under a coalition style structure (like italy, Israel or many other countries), we have "come along to get along" or however we want to put it.

But then we go back to that one vote, one person - that feeling that, like Daffy Duck, "It's mine! All mine I tell ya!"

I mean - our votes? They ARE ours.  But - well - you know - maybe they aren't as much ours as we are used to thinking? 

This is a new idea for me - I have to think about this.  But I think I'm having a mini-revelation - our votes really do not belong to us, when we agree to participate in a democracy - because if they are 100% ours, look at what can be made OF us, without us even trying.

That is to say that the voters Denise and Joanne and others describe - as deliberating and deciding as they see fit what to do with their vote and when to do it - enshrine that one person one vote mantra.

But for others - well - me too maybe - I'm asking for them to give a little bit of that away - for the sake of the system.

Hmm. I have to think about that!

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Pundit mom  I just don't understand this about her treatment.  He called her after every primary victory to congratulate her and often got voicemail.  He also did so publicly with every loss and I did not hear her do the same.  At the same time you say the playing feild should be level but then treat her special?  You cannot have it both ways.  This is his win not hers.  I am just not getting why it is expected of him to bend over backwards for her.  Did everyone in the running get a staffer or just her? I admit I was never a supporter of hers for the reasons of Bill but her behavior in the primary was just not acceptable.  The fact is she ran a poor campaign. Read http://www.politico.com/relentless/  Beyond all that there was the top officials of the party saying to her be careful because you are causing damage that may not be able to be undone in the general and she did not listen.  Have you seen any John McCain ads lately?

If your daughter loses a soccer game how would you expect her to behave?  If she is second runner up in a padgent?  She had her seat at the table but she got wayyy to comfortable in it.  Reading these posts I am begining to feel like you all really do not know what you want.  Isn't that what men alsway say of women?  If we can't make up our minds then how are they supposed to have a clue?  Here it is, make up your mind.  If the playing feild is level then she lost due to the media bias, or whatever the reason.  Now this is not little league where there are no losers this is the big time.  Put on your big girl panties and decide what you want.  You have every right to decide however you want but make a decision!  If you want your grandchildren to still be trying to fix our 420 bil in debt or still dealing with the PTSD of all the vetrans of all the wars we get into McCain is your guy.  If you want the government to legislate medical and moral decisions, McCain is your guy.  Unfortunatly you only have 2 choices ....maybe 3 but make a decision becuse Hillary is off the table. 

Michelle

Hello Cindy,

You wrote an eloquent list of what's at stake. But please don't:

1. ...assume it's all sisters--remember, Hillary got an increasing number of male voters as time went on, and these are probably among the most likely voters to be consisdering McCain now if past history is any indication

2. ...blame sisters--as PunditMom correctly said, there are varying opinions about who has been divisive here. Plus, I believe Obama could do a much better job of pulling in the women who aren't enthiusiastically throwing their support to him. I've spoken to the Obama campaign and written about this a lot, so I won't repeat myself. But having worked in many campaigns, I am pretty sure Obama could have most of the holdouts eating out of his hand if he would just switch his lens from asserting that all of us should be Women for Obama to thinking about how he can be Obama for Women. It's always up to the leader, the victor, the person with the formally designated power to reach out to the other party. In doing that he would gain vastly more power, paradoxically. One of Obama's failings, and I hope it does not turn out ot be his Achilles heel, is his arrogance.

3. ...imagine that sisters are going to be prioritized by any administration if we don't flexe our political muscles early and often. Now is the time to continue working to get Obama and the Democratic Party to advance the priorities we want, many of which you outlined so cogently. We've improved the platform by standing strong. But the candidates need to continue to hear from us. Once they get elected, they become increasingly hard of hearing.

OK, gotta get some work done now.

Cheers,

Gloria

Gloria Feldt

www.GloriaFeldt.com

www.GloriaFeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blog

Senator Joe Biden claims that the Violence against Women Act is the greatest achievement of his career. As a result of this legislation, the federal government pays states to create laws effectively requiring that innocent men be removed from their homes and families without even an allegation of violence, with no legitimate standards of evidence, when a woman makes a claim that she is afraid.
 Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association (1999), has said "the facts have become irrelevant... restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply. Regarding divorce cases, she states "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage". According to Epstein, who is also a former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out "like candy" and "in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had." Cathy Young reports on the Elaine Epstein quote and the broader issue at Salon.com here:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/This report from RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) provides much insight into the situation brought about, in large part, by Joe Biden.

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-A-Culture-of-False-Allegations.pdfState restraining order laws are starting to fall because they're unconstitutional. The federal law behind them, written by Joe Biden, is likely to fall as well, not because it's unpopular, but because it's clearly unconstitutional.

There is a rapidly growing activist community dedicated to addressing this issue. One of the focal points of this community is the Glenn Sacks blog, www.glennsacks.com . 

I said third party.

And I'm sorry if this seems like a cop-out, but I would prefer not to discuss the details of my personal voting considerations right now. I've avoided blogging politics since the primary concluded, and I'm just going to make my decision and cast my vote, you know?

Liz Rizzo

I blog at Everyday Goddess.

I wrote yesterday that I thought that one reason a vP can't be a woman this year is because of how it would look with the wives of the Pres. candidates - and I think you hit on something like that.  But I also think a lot of this has to do with us - not in a blame way, but rather, this is the construct we know- we can't just change - no matter what. And when change is thrust on us, well - some of us do better than others with it, and some never do well with it.

Anyway - I don't want to be a broken record.  I understand what you're saying. For some voters, there won't be any best options, only less worse, I'm afraid. :(

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Elana:

"the idea that we are going to have to start fighting this battle for recognition of women all over again from the beginning"

we won't be starting all over - Hillary has made enormous progress in women being taking seriously in politics in this country. That can't be taken away.

my last post:

2 Reasons Why Women Should Vote for Obama

Any political party that doesn't understand the importance of protecting my personal freedoms and the freedoms that America stands for, doesn't understand terrorism, promotes fascism, and will never, ever get my vote.

The Republicans should be completely ashamed of the state of their party.

Liz Rizzo

I blog at Everyday Goddess.

Neither does it give me a warm fuzzy that Dr. Ingrid Mattson spoke at
the prayer service on Sunday. She represents the Islamic Society of
North America, a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, which provided
the ideological foundation for Al-Qaeda.

Last time I checked, followers of Islam were also Americans. Why shouldn't she represent them at an interfaith prayer service? And what references are you citing regarding the Islamic Sociey being a "front group"? And could you clarify what you mean? It sounds to me you are lumping all Muslims together, and that is a very dangerous statement, I think.

Thanks for clarifying if you will.

Notions of Identity

Jill, I wrote to Obama's campaign recommending that he seek advice about the ideology behind Islamic terrorism from people who've studied it, rather than seek advice from Cold War holdovers like Albright and Brzezinski.

The question about defining the terrorist threat is rhetorical. We lived through 9/11. I read your profile on your blog and saw that you had lived in Israel. Surely there's no need to be more specific about what is meant by the terrorist threat.