Tuesday, Aug. 26, at the DNC: What will Hillary Clinton and her supporters do? Plus: Valerie Jarrett

I appreciate you taking the time to flesh out some of what you've written already since clearly I disagree with one of your prior assertions that defining the terrorist threat is rhetorical - under no circumstances is it rhetorical (and it's my time in Israel that helps me know this for a fact - just ask an Israeli Arab or Jew about what they see as a terrorist threat - they will give you a lot more than rhetoric).

But this isn't about satisfying me or anyone but yourself - nothing that you've written gives me any reason to believe, more than anything else I know, that an attack WILL occur and that I should be afraid of an attack and for an attack any more now than I have at any other time in my life (I'm 46).

Being able to think critically about the words you read and the images you see that come from any organization to which you look for information is vital to being an informed citizen. Some call it overthinking in my case, and they're probably right.  But on an issue with sweeping terms like "terrorist attack" and "jihad" and other phrases that people use to invoke very specific images and feelings, it's even more vital that we deconstruct what exactly is going on - and what we should take away.

From what you've written, my sense is that you've taken away exactly what's been fed to you without further thought about the reality of life, here or anywhere else. I don't mean that as a putdown or as a righteous statement - I write it based on my experience in places like Israel - not only for the year I lived there, but also from having just spent two weeks there, with my family, friends and rabbi.

Let me try to explain.

First, I don't actually recall where you've written before about why you are afraid of another attack.  Maybe you mean you are afraid another attack will occur if we don't elect the right people, or something along those lines?

Here's some of what you wrote that might hint at why you are afraid that there will be another attack or you are afraid of the abstract idea of terrorist attacks:

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.

Captain James Yee, who was charged with mishandling classified
information from Gitmo, was credentialed as a delegate to the
Democratic Convention

The Democrats are soft on terror. I'm not smitten with John McCain,
but he understands the terrorist threat better than the Democrats,
which is why I'll likely vote for McCain.

You don't really say what you mean by "soft on terrorism" but I am guessing that you think that this being soft is why you should be afraid?

Maybe it's this?

...many groups (ISNA, CAIR, Muslim American Society, Muslim Students
Association) that represent Islam in the US have their origins in
radical organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. 

So - you fear that there will be terrorist attacks (in the US, I assume? you aren't so concerned about them happening anywhere else?) because the groups you name, in your beliefs, have origins in "radical organizations" and you imagine that radical nature to...foster terrorist acts?

If that is at all accurate, it's way too vague to apply to the choice of who is best able to govern. I would argue that education and exposure to people different from us is the best way to battle terrorist threats, for it is alienation and isolation that breeds discomfort when you see something or someone unlike yourself.  So - what is "radical"?

You may say that I should know what you mean by radical in this context, but what you mean by radical in this context is what you've been told is radical and is equated to something you should fear.  

I could not disagree more with that message (that is trying to be sent out by groups like Jihadwatch - not necessarily by you - I do want to be clear on that - I think you've appropriated what you've read or been told - I'm urging you to be more critical with all that information).

Then again, there is the notion of radical as meaning to take action - BlogHer is radical in that sense, on a regular basis. At its conference, there was even a session on whether Mommyblogging is a radical act (sure, why not?).

But the way you write about radical, you write as though you are sure we will all shrink back in fear when the label is applied and read. I hate to break it to you, but some of us are attracted to things labeled radical because we read that as code for "I care enough to do something about what bothers me."

In fact, you could be called radical, since, as you write, 

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.

That is a great act of radicalism - seriously.  Do you have any idea how few people actually write political candidates or their elected officials? (I do, since I work to convince people to speak up all the time!) (As for the content of what you wrote, that's another post!)

And these aren't the last resort definitions, The Style Page (sorry - you've yet to name yourself and I couldn't find a name to go with your online work).  I'm not Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader when it comes to the concept of radical or even fringe, but I care, enormously and passionately, about all life and I will not allow others to define what level of threat I should feel.

You know, I'm re-reading all your comments, and I have to tell you - I really cannot figure out why you are afraid, to be honest. I'm not sure you know either. You write about terrorist threats as though you live in Jamaica and are getting pummeled by Gustav, or live in the areas where there may be landfall and you've been through this experience before and know to what extent you need to be concerned.

But my brother lived through 9/11, saw the second plane hit the tower, stood packed in at Battery Park with thousands of other people, walked 100 plus blocks home up the East Side. He has fears and guess what - he is an Obama supporter, and he still lives and works in NYC and he travels internationally as does his wife on a regular basis.

My brother is someone I would understand to have fear beyond what I think is reasonable - because of his experience.

I don't understand why you do - but then maybe my sense of what is reasonable fear is out of whack - that sure is what John McCain and Jihadwatch and the Bush administration want to make me think.

And just to drive this home - it's not that I don't think the goings-on that lead to terrorist attacks aren't happening, or that there aren't people who hate you, or me, or Americans or Jews or Blacks or women or Arabs or Muslims.

Of course there are. But what on earth does pushing the meme that Democrats are soft on terror mean that translates into, "they can't protect us"?

Honey - electing a president isn't like throwing salt over your shoulder to ward off bad juju. Bush was president - we had an attack.  Oklahoma - home-grown - under a different president.  On a daily basis, people are attacking one another - parents abuse children, spouses victimize spouses.

Do you really believe that the seeds of terrorist acts that grow in any one person are any different than what motivates people to commit other acts of violence (and I'm not talking about self-defense)? Desperation? Hopelessness? Desire to control? Inability to express or resolve anger or disagreement in any non-violent way?

The way you write about "terrorist threat" means that those folks commiting or desiring to commit an act of terror have already achieved in you what they want: control of your actions and choices. Control which you cede to our government in the name of what government people tell you is or analogize to as being the terrorist threat.

And if voluntary abdiction of control over your life, at the behest of people who present images to you to suggest that you should be afraid isn't terrifying, I don't know what is. 

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I still don't understand why you take objection to my comment. I believe that my statement is self-evident.

If you must know, terrorism is when someone crashes in a plane in a building (as what happened (9/11) or straps a bomb to him/herself (as what happens in Israel) to kill people as they go about their daily business.

I am afraid of another terror attack on the U.S., for the reason I stated earlier. Given the fragile nature of the U.S. economy, a terrorist attack will devastate it even further. To say nothing about the victims or the grief of the survivors. And if you must know, I haven't been taken in by the so-called politics of fear for which the Bush administration is accused.

Call Jihad Watch a "propaganda" site, but I find the information presented by Robert and Marisol to be credible and reliable. Admittedly, Raymond's tone is sarcastic and Hugh is often strident.

Show me where Jihad Watch tells me to be afraid. I am afraid not because anyone is telling me to be afraid.

I don't have direct experience with terror. I've traveled to India several times, and it scares that some of the places where I've been or where loved ones have been were subject to terror attacks. I am always concerned about my loved ones' safety in the wake of a terrorist attack.

Personal experience is only one way of knowing; evidence is another.

I'd take away my comment about your being prettier than me if I could: it only serves to undermine my feelings about myself. That you have more academic credentials than me is fact.

I hope that this satisfies you.

BlogHer is a place I love BECAUSE we interact and can meet people and people w/views we might not otherwise interact with. Don't reduce your original post's assertions about Muslims and McCain and Obama and then how someone who was in Israel should feel about the terrorist threat with that kind of glib trying to put closure on this comment.  You haven't once answered back since you made your suggestion that since I was in Israel I should know.

Speak for yourself - what do YOU feel?  What do you believe is meant by the terrorist threat? Are you really afraid or are you afraid because others tell you that you should be afraid?

This is okay- disagreement is okay - LEARNING is good.

Teach me what I don't know - but don't send me to propaganda like FrontPage or JIhadWatch. Tell me what YOU know from YOUR experience.  As a blogger, in particular, I trust little else.  That is meant as a compliment.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

... but then I'm neither as well-educated nor as attractive as you.

"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."

That's not whistling Dixie.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Frankly, I don't understand what I said that aroused such umbrage. I made no assumptions about your views.

Quick retorts are often not my best moments;however, referencing the Jihad Watch as a credible resource was a conversation stopper for me. It "reveals" based on the personal bias of its creator, which I believe is often hateful. I call it like I see it. But I apologize if my earlier response was harsh or disrespectful to you. Now, before I do it again I'm going to disengage from this conversation and go celebrate the history of this evening. 

Notions of Identity ( http://www.notionsofidentity.com )

You do not know me or my politics if you would say that re: my living in Israel. Perhaps you're unaware that Israelis are fine with either Obama or McCain.  That you've been impressed by generalizations, talking points and the media that pushes the military industrial complex.

But I am my own person on this topic and certainly not easily pigeon-holed, as at least a few in this community will tell you when it comes to the Middle East.

I resent others using my religion as a foil for their fears.

When you are willing to speak for yourself, as yourself, let's chat.  But until then, please do not even offer up the bait of "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."

If you want to start with understanding me, check out Rabbis for Human Rights ( http://rhr.israel.net/ ), Israel's singularly brave efforts to absorb Darfur refugees ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901138.html ) (who are Muslim) and Givat Haviva ( http://www.givathaviva.org.il/english/ ), which works to expose the peace and exchange that occurs on so many levels between Israeli Jews and Arabs. These are the programs and efforts I support in the effort to eradicate the "terrorist threat."

Please - do not insult my intelligence.  And I do apologize if this sounds harsh - I'm more known for sticking my foot in my mouth.  But you are being audacious in the worst sense of the word, in my opinion.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

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.

I consider Jihad Watch a credible reference, as it reveals what Islamicists say and do and the origins in the Quran and Sunnah. Once someone brings out the canard "hate," it's a conversation stopper.

for supplying the reference; however, I should have specified that I was looking for a credible reference, not a hate web site.

Notions of Identity ( http://www.notionsofidentity.com )

No, I am not lumping all Muslims together.  However, many groups (ISNA, CAIR, Muslim American Society, Muslim Students Association) that represent Islam in the US have their origins in radical organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.  For references, please browse or search Jihad Watch, www.jihadwatch.org ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/ ). 

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 ( http://www.notionsofidentity.com )

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 ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

What would you say needs to be done about what you call the terrorist threat?  Can you be more specific about how you define the threat itself?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

While it's been nearly 7 years since 9/11, Islamic terrorism is still a threat. Another terrorist attack would devastate our economy further.

The theme of last night's DNC was "Securing America's Future." However, terrorism was never addressed.

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.

Captain James Yee, who was charged with mishandling classified information from Gitmo, was credentialed as a delegate to the Democratic Convention

The Democrats are soft on terror. I'm not smitten with John McCain, but he understands the terrorist threat better than the Democrats, which is why I'll likely vote for McCain.

Vote the issues.  I concur.

log.candelariasilva.com

Good and plenty!

I had this thread in my head last night when I saw the MSNBC analysis of the hilary hold outs (or however they're referring to them) - indeed it was 60% women.

Nice to see you here Gloria.

Mom-101 ( http://mom-101.blogspot.com )
( http://coolmompicks.com )

Cool Mom Picks.com ( http://coolmompicks.com )

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/restra... ( http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restra... )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-... ( http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-A-... )State 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 ( http://www.glennsacks.com/ ) . 

http://www.blogher.com/obama-advisor-valerie-jarre...

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://blogher.org/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

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

As an independent voter, I really wish that other voters would focus on the issues rather than the candidate. While I sympathize with those who really wanted a woman to be president (I did, too), I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would turn their back on a nominee who has a virtually identical stance on the issues as Clinton.

Voting for a third party will create a scenario similar to the past two elections, when people "threw away" their votes to Nader and such. A third party vote takes votes away from the Democratic nominee. Voting against the issues you stand so strongly for makes absolutely no sense to me.

I've enjoyed Trisha' comments. She seems as perplexed as I am that anyone would vote for McCain and CHOOSE to lead our country in the same direction it has gone instead of following the issues, thus improving women's rights.

Please, vote with the issues. Don't create another Bush administration.

- Sarah Porter

Imaginary Binky ( http://www.imaginarybinky.com )

Sorry, I don't vote for a major party candidate just so that the other won't win. If I vote for Obama, it will be because I want to vote for Obama.

If I vote for a third party candidate, it will be at least partially to encourage and support the growth of independent parties in America, something that's personally important to me.

It's Obama's job to get the votes to win, not my responsibility to just give him mine.

This post from Shakesville addresses some of my personal philosophies in this regard: Perfectly Logical Calculations, and Why They're Actually Not ( http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/08/per... )

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

 The election will prove to be intreasting to everyone I think. Its amazing how the diffrent presonalities emerge. Certain canidates where very quiet have now emerged with a bigger mouth. The circu that goes with it amazes me. It sure will go down as an election to go down in history.

Chronic Chick Tal ( http://www.chronicchicktalk.com )k

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 ( http://www.ideasforwomen.com/news/change/2008/08/2... )

a third party candidate won't win - so its just helping McCain who is just about as anti-woman as someone could get.   

my last post:

2 Reasons Why Women Should Vote for Obama ( http://www.ideasforwomen.com/news/change/2008/08/2... )

A woman will be elected for President.  It just wasn't Hillary's time is my firm belief.

As a Black woman, I was able, during the countdown to this point, to feel good and bad about the campaign from the female and Black parts of my being.  As a Black woman and a human being, I feel good about Obama's campaign.  It doesn't make me less of a woman or feminist.

One cannot merely sit in pain and rage and what might have been,  You have to keep fighting for another day.  Those of us who are not in power have to work harder for what we get.  It's the way it is.  One part of my being doesn't trump the other part of my being.

 I'm happy-happy!

blog.candelariasilva.com

Good and plenty!

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 ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

The reason it's so hard for some of us to let go of Hillary is because of our own daily, constant pain in life being women, having to deal with so many hurdles, so many rejections and put-downs as women -- reliving Hillary's own struggles, to tell you the truth, like you said, of being the wiser, more experienced woman having to step aside for the charismatic, smooth-talking, inexperienced younger man. It's constant. Being a woman in America is so trying. It's being called "miss" even when we are doctors, being told not to speak too passionately becuase people (men) will stop listening (that was today), being looked at -- still, despite our work, our credentials, our abilities, our everything -- as nothing more than a body, and on and on.... Hillary's loss is like a stab at all of these wounds, making it all more intense and burning. And no matter how amazing Obama may (or may not) be, the idea that we are going to have to start fighting this battle for recognition of women all over again from the beginning is just, well, devastating. Frankly, seeing Michelle Obama up there just makes it worse. Under Obama, we have reverted to being wife of. It's just too painful, and I wish people would stop telling us to get over it fast and just bite the bullet "for the sake of America." What about for the sake of women? We are America too. I am America, too...

If Hillary runs as an independent, I will most emphatically vote for her. 

Elana 

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 ( http://www.GloriaFeldt.com )

www.GloriaFeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blog ( http://www.GloriaFeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blo... )

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 ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo ) - You asked "Why is that so strange?" that you don't know if you will vote for Obama or not. To me it seems strange because Obama and Hillary's positions on most issues are nearly identical. And are nearly polar opposite to that of McCain. I agree that there was sexism throughout the primary, but Obama is in favor of more issues that will help women than anyone else running now. And not voting doesn't help anyone but the anti-woman policies of McCain.

Given the choice that we have now between Obama and McCain, I can't see how any woman who cares to have control over her own body could vote for anyone but Obama - and I wrote about that in my last blog post:

2 Reasons Why Women Should Vote for Obama ( http://www.ideasforwomen.com/news/change/2008/08/2... )

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

...Just thought I throw that out there. 

I started to write a big long comment here then wrote it on my blog instead. But the bottom line to me, as I said there, is this:

Our sisters will do us a disservice that will last a very
long time if they continue to stand in the way of an Obama victory or even just
sit on their hands, because that will betray women who are at the bottom of the
power pile, raising children alone, struggling for childcare, lacking health
insurance, vacation or sick leave and any kind of job security. Feminists
rightly say that "every issue is a women's issue" and that means that
every decision in a McCain administration will have a heavy impact on these
women, and on the rest of us. Beyond that, in my view, the perils of an
anti-choice administration that will nominate judges like those who overrode
violence against women laws in Virginia and frequently support employers over
women seeking redress to sexual harassment or other discrimination, an
Administration that will carry on the Bush foreign policy and continue to
decimate our constitutional rights -- oh - you know the list -- those perils outweigh
any grievance.

That's just an opinion of course. If we're lucky, tonight will help to make this conversation moot -- or at least set it on the way there.

Cynthia Samuels, Partner
Cobblestone Associates, LLP
Blog and Media Strategies and Content Development Online and on Television Don’t
Gel Too Soon ( http://dontgelyet.typepad.com/dontgeltoosoon )

( http://dontgelyet.typepad.com/dontgeltoosoon )

But I guess there is indeed some faction of Hillary Clinton supporters determined to rabble-rouse. I guess that's their right.

Personally, I just continue to be flummoxed by the press coverage of Hillary Clinton, and all the sexism and misogyny throughout the entire primary. The way she was spoken about shook me to my core and knocked more than one blog completely out of my reader. It made me wonder if becoming a Democrat was the right choice for me. I'm still trying to figure that out.

And I'm not 100% sure about my vote right now, but even saying that, as a Hillary supporter, I'm afraid I'm going to be labeled and derided. My candidate got half the primary votes. I really, really believed in her and wanted her to win, and I'm still not sure if I want to vote for Obama or vote third party. Why is that so strange?

Anyway, here's a great, must-read post on Media Matters about all the creepy stuff going on with our incredibly disturbingly incompetent press: Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story ( http://mediamatters.org/columns/200808260005 )

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

I'm sure she's sincere and hopefully tonight she will be able to convince more people to support Obama.   Like Hillary said, we can't afford 4 more years of this!

 my last post:

2 Reasons Why Women Should Vote for Obama ( http://www.ideasforwomen.com/news/change/2008/08/2... )

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 ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Thanks PunditMom.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

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.

Plenty of Hillary supporters feel, rightly or wrongly, that Barack Obama's campaign has been the divisive factor, treating her poorly and not reaching out to her, the piece de resistance being the fact that Obama did not call Clinton herself to tell her she was not the VP choice, but having a staffer do it instead (tho' he did call later).

I heard a former colleage on an NPR piece this morning who is a Hillary delegate say she will NOT cast her ballot on the floor for Obama. Why? Aside from the fact that she says she was elected to cast her voice for Hillary, she said plainly, "Obama hasn't asked for the votes of Hillary's delegates."

PunditMom ( http://punditmom1.blogspot.com ), Politics & News Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/punditmom )

Also at MOMocrats, ( http://momocrats.typepad.com/joanne_bamberger/ ) The Huffington Post ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-bamberger ) and special contributor during the campaign at the Women's Campaign Forum ( http://womenandpolitics.org/ )

Right, agree completely.

There are large groups of Clinton supporters who did make the switch to Obama, like Senator Tubbs Jones.

There are large groups of Clinton supporters who haven't made the switch to Obama, like me - but not because we are undying Clinton supporters. I supported Clinton meaning I voted for her in the primary and would have voted for her for President but she's no longer in the running so, that's done and I'm trying to decide who to vote for.

Then there are large groups of Clinton supporters who aren't just supporting Clinton, they're using Clinton's run for the presidency to take a stand and make a statement. They aren't going to just say "OK that's done" until they feel like they've achieved their goal OR there is no longer a way for them to work towards their goal. I believe that many of these women will swing to Obama in the fall (as Feldt indicated) but there will be some who hold out, and keep trying to make that statement. That's ok. That's what social and political protest is about. And I applaud those women for taking a stand and putting up a fight.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

Or it might have been DMs  I forget (sorry Denise!) but the point was that I certainly thought Clinton was sincere - I do feel she is working hard at sending the message, but I also believe that there are people who do not want to hear her - they hate what the implications of listening to her are - and yet many of those same voters were probably some of the earliest adopters of working to make Clinton the nominee, from years and years ago.

I get the consistency of loyalty, but I look to the late and wonderful Stephanie Tubbs Jones - who was my congressional rep.  Her devotion and loyalty to Clinton can never be doubted - and she moved her allegiance to Obama - gracefully, completely and only after Clinton said, it's ok - you can do it.

So that example says to me that the catcalls for Clinton to do more than she is doing and appears to plan on doing are over the top because it is the voters who are not listening - it's not that she isn't trying. 

Remember the Steve Martin bit where he says he goes to Paris France and they like all speak French or something? So he just yells at the cabbie more loudly but still in English?  The voters who remain defiant are not going to be persuaded by anything Clinton says because she is not speaking the language they want to hear.  So the teardowns of Clinton for not doing enough are really unnecessary - and wasted energy.  They are more of the same from the primary - picking on her, beating her up, saying she is disingenuous and so on.

Her supporters know what they should be doing - like Tubbs Jones knew.  And those who call themselves supporters but are choosing illogical ways of acting out at this point?

I think the moniker of "supporter" really needs examination in their cases.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Thanks, Lisa, for your detailed and encouraging response (and I am so jealous at how fast you can type, a skill I never learned). 

So we'll stay tuned and hope work for the best.

Cheers,

Gloria

Gloria Feldt

www.GloriaFeldt.com ( http://www.GloriaFeldt.com )

www.GloriaFeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blog ( http://www.GloriaFeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blo... )

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 ( http://blogher.org/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

...and she just told us why and all about it.

Stay tuned for the video.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

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 ( http://www.blogher.com/i-get-plane-clinton-support... ) 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 ( http://www.gloriafeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blo... ):

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 ( http://blogher.org/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

I’m sick unto death of charges lobbed, often by people who ostensibly want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States, that Obama’s current problems with women voters and the blue collar and older constituents are caused directly or indirectly by Hillary or by bitter Hillary Clinton’s supporters who are defecting to McCain.

It's a great woman-bites-dog story, but in the end, that dog won't hunt as we used to say in Texas. Sure, there will be some outlyers, but in the end most will come home in November. That is, unless the flames are fanned so high by those of us who write and otherwise pontificate that they consume Obama. Here's my prediction:

http://www.gloriafeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blo... ( http://www.gloriafeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blo... ), also posted here at Blogher.

Gloria Feldt

www.GloriaFeldt.com ( http://www.GloriaFeldt.com )

www.GloriaFeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blog ( http://www.GloriaFeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blo... )

She has a good piece in there today ( http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/26/pumas... ) and I used it as a jumping off point in this post on BlogHer ( http://www.blogher.com/media-whipped-puma-phenom-o... ).

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )