The problem is not Clinton...

[busymom]

It is not Obama.

It isn't even that this primary process has allowed states who usually don't have a say at all to feel like their votes count as much as the voters of Iowa. Go democracy! It's great that the voters of Indiana and N. Carolina will feel like they are having a say. Hopefully the voters will become more engaged and we will have record turnout in November by the democrats to ensure a victory for us this time around instead of the complacency that usually finds its way into our elections.

The problem is that it's personal...and I'm not talking about the kitchen sink politics that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can both be blamed for (par for the course in politics, btw).

The issue at hand is that there are many women who feel like as a whole we have not had the opportunities to rise to positions of real importance in our personal and professional lives. For many women, once children come, we are often the ones relegated to the mundane tasks. We are the ones who have to take sick days off, make sure that the homwork is done and the lunches are packed. Women still earn less than men...even in professional jobs where education and experience is equal. It is exciting to see a woman charging towards the top even if some of her politicking isn't how we think it should be done or ...we imagine that we would do it. Conversely, many African Americans also feel like they have been held back for too long. Slavery and the racism and distortions that followed are a shameful part of this nation's history. Barack Obama represents the hope that racial equality will finally happen in this country. He stands for change and moving away from the negatives. Right now, the American people are tired of feeling bad. We've had 8 years of bad.

Both candidates are great. That's the truth. Instead of being able to appreciate this and really sit back and enjoy this process, the supporters and pundits from both sides have begun to villify the other candidate and that candidate's supporters. It is 'snowbama' or 'i could never vote for someone who dresses like she does'. The nastiness is reprehensible.

We only have ourselves to blame if the democratic party can't unify itself. It's not Obama or Clinton's fault....it's our own.

It's time to embrace more positive messages and stop the personal attacks. Let's all take a good hard look in the mirror and start making changes in ourselves...and stop pointing out what we percieve as the flaws of others here or the other candiate.

[babylonsister]

1. Sorry, the problem IS Clinton, for reasons too many to enumerate.

But you know what they are. I'll be happy when a woman I actually respect can run for the highest office in the land, with her integrity in tact.
Otherwise, nice post. :)

[roguevalley]

26. agreed, babylonsister.

[Lisa0825]

31. Ditto nt

[bvar22]

34. Obama has been a gentleman.

He HAS counter punched direct attacks, but he hasn't come anywhere close to an all out kitchen sink attack on Hillary or Bill.

[babylonsister]

35. Yes, and that's one of the many things I find really impressive about him! nt

[Redbear]

2. Exactly, and well spoken Busymom.

We can't let people keep us from being unified.

Many good Democrats support each of the two candidates.

[Writer]

3. You are spot on.

Unfortunately, people wish only to see themselves in the best light possible, and it is much easier for people to blame faceless institutions such as the government and the media than to hold themselves accountable.

[grantcart]

4. I would love to agree 100% with your thoughtful, well reasoned and well written post.

My problem is that the Clinton campaign engaged in political charges that were obviously designed not simply to hurt Obama but hurt him in the GE - and then use his weakness in the GE as an argument against him. That is her fault. The issue of undermining confidence in his ability to be commander in chief is one example.

Nevertheless love your spirit.

[maxsolomon]

5. critiques of policy are fair game.

when hillary takes absurd, DINO positions, it is legitimate to criticize them.

but i with you on this point: i will lay off critiques of the pantsuits.

[busymom]

6. we can agree and disagree with policy, but

It is the vitriolic nature of the attacks that is bringing the party down...not whether or not Clinton or Obama has the better healthcare plan (for example).

[Writer]

10. And how those attacks become personal vendettas against supporters of the opposition.

[donheld]

16. "It is the vitriolic nature of the attacks that is bringing the party down"

Hillary has been a master at these kinds of attacks. She,
and Bill, have made them over and over and over again.

[iamjoy]

7. Very True

Sadly, I am sure that whoever our candidate is, if he or she loses in November, supporters of that candidate will be sure to blame the other. The other candidate's supporters will say "I told you so"

If Obama is our nominee and loses to McCain Clinton supporters will say that he was never electable in the first place and if we'd gone with Hillary, we would have won. Obama supporters will blame the loss on Clinton poisoning the well.

If Hillary Clinton is our candidate and McCain becomes President, Obama supporters will be smug in their conviction that if their guy had been the nominee, he would have beaten McCain. Hillary supporters will blame the Obama camp for not doing enough to rally his supporters to her side.

[busymom]

11. This is why it's important for us to unify now...

The turnout for dems this primary cycle exceeded republican turnout by a landslide. If we can stop alienating each other, the democrats will pull this out regardless of who the candidate is. High dem turnout consistent with the primaries = a democrat in the white house no matter who is on the ballot. That's the bottom line. We need to turn off our nastiness and start embracing fellow democrats or we really do stand a chance of losing in the Fall.

[ProSense]

8. Obviously,

I complete disagree

[Road Scholar]

9. She's blocking the best president we've had since Kennedy.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. Unless you have a crystal ball

and are supremely clairvoyant, you have no way of knowing this.

[Road Scholar]

39. Can you count?

[Blue_In_AK]

44. I'm talking about the "best president since Kennedy" part...

You absolutely have no way of knowing this, and won't have, until Obama's been president for a while. He may end up being a good president, he may not. WE DON'T KNOW. We can only hope.

[PassingFair]

12. "Both candidates are great. That's the truth."

I disagree. Barack Obama is acceptable.

Hillary Clinton is not.

Her IWR vote PRECLUDES her from getting my primary vote.

So many other senators and reps voted against
the unlawful MURDER of hundreds of thousands of
INNOCENT Iraqis, that I would NEVER vote for her
given a chance to vote for another.

In addition, she is a teller of tales, and a
DLC LEADER, all reasons obliterating her chances for getting MY primary
vote.

That said, I would vote for her over John McCain,
but the vote would very much reflect a choice for
the "lesser of two evils".

[Celebration]

13. And this is why

Clinton polls so much better among women than men, especially older women.............

I have a theory that the Monica story actually helps Hillary. Why? Because probably a lot of women have husbands who had affairs, etc. So they see Clinton coming through it all, and project their own lives into her political success.

I have news for you, though. She has run a terrible campaign, especially poorly organized. I don't think she would do women proud if she were to be POTUS. Yes, she would be better than Bush. But, you know, an obliterated Iran has a lot of women and children that would be suffering.

I say let's just vote for the best candidate. For my taste, that is not Hillary.

[cbayer]

14. I really enjoyed reading that.

I think the two candidates probably have a lot of respect and fondness for each other. Although each has benefited in their own way from some of the negative behavior on the part of their supporters, I suspect they do not approve of it. They continue to treat each other in a very civil way despite the incredible dynamics and heat of this race.

Very nice and thoughtful piece. Don't let the haters get you down.

[TBF]

15. It may be personal for you, but it's not for me.

I feel Hillary represents everything that is wrong with the democratic party right now. In pandering to the center and right we have lost touch with our own issues and voice. Hillary needs to join the Republican party, where she can fantasize about "obliterating" countries with her cohorts, or she needs to seriously rethink her approach to campaigning.

As far as feminist theory, she's only a step ahead of Ann Coulter in my book. Two elite women who think of themselves and their own ambitions above all others. They have no idea what it's like to be poor and not have choices (whether to work or not, etc...). I've disliked her since she made her ridiculous statement in the 90's about how she could've "stayed home and baked cookies" - which insulted women who made the choice to stay home, or do not have any choice in whether they will work or not due to economic necessity. I don't want my daugter looking up to someone with the morals and views of Hillary Clinton. I want her to see Barack Obama in the White House, with his strong first lady, Michelle.

Anyway, I thought your post was sincere but I wanted to give you another progressive woman's point of view. Peace.

[Triana]

17. The problem is Clinton's Republican behavior. Sorry. I really AM sorry. n/t

[progressoid]

18. Damn you Iowa!

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

[newmajority]

19. I reject this whole premise of "sexism"

Not to say that sexism doesn't exist, it obviously does. But if sexism was the main reason Hillary was losing, then she wouldn't have the endorsement of obvious sexists like Mush Limpdick, Rupert Murdoch, and Richard Mellonhead Scaife.

Granted, they're only endorsing her because she would lose to McCain, but that thinking comes with it the slight possibility she could win. And obviously, that seems to bother them less than Obama winning. So if these sexists are willing to accept a Hillary presidency, I don't think you can accuse half the Democrats of being sexist.

Speaking only for myself, I have voted for women in city, county, state, and congressional elections. I would vote for a woman as President, if I could support her as a candidate. I cannot say that about Hillary Clinton. If a better candidate is available in 2016, she will have my vote.

[cascadiance]

20. As a white male, I'm looking forward to the day that we either have a woman or a person of color...

... in the White House. So this election holds out a lot of hope that we'll see that day shortly.

That being said, though some of the voters out there take this as a personal mission for one of those events happening (a woman or a person of color getting elected), for me it's "personal" that we restore integrity and do some BIG TIME fixing of the problems in our government now. Which means experience, though in certain areas is valuable, in many areas in my book could be looked on as a negative, if that "experience" predisposes that person to continue the status quo.

A more extreme of this case would be if somehow Condi Rice were to run for the Democratic nomination. Then you'd get "two for your money" on both of these goals. But as many would see here in this most extreme case, most of us would be VERY disappointed in the results of what she would actually DO as president, as we have with her roles in the Bush administration.

In my book, the candidate most representing the chance for this change is Barack Obama. I'd earlier hoped that Edwards would hang in longer to keep this message of change more at the forefront and alive in our party, but alas he's not here.

One almost thinks that the powers that be "allowing" our race to get down to these candidates was designed from the beginning, if it wasn't an earlier victory for Ms. Clinton, because they know many will vote purely on whether that person is a woman or a person of color for the personal reasons you state and pay less attention to the issues at hand. Perhaps their theory is that person would be less likely to beat their more "serving" Republican candidate that would win that primary.

One of these "personal goals" will be met if a Democrat is elected. What's more important though that we should all unite around, is to put someone in that will be the leader for change in this system. A leader to tear down the corporate lobbyist ties that threaten to destroy this nation right now. That is what we should all be sure will happen, and DEMAND should happen, no matter who gets the nomination. Ultimately we want our representatives to unite around that message too in Congress as well.

We've allowed this race to be "hijacked" by the distraction oriented MSM noise machine, and it's been going on for too long instead of letting us focus on the real issues that we should be using to help everyone make the right choice in the Fall. At some point, I do believe Hillary should realize that her staying in the race fuels this distraction machine, whether she wants it to or not. If others are encouraging her to stay on when the odds are against it and she is inclined to drop out to preserve her political future, she should be conscious that those others are likely encouraging her to stay on to really do just that (fuel the distraction machine!). At some point this needs to stop before it gets out of hand, and the unity you (and I) desire is impossible.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. Unless we democrats get our shit together, we'll get neither. n/t

[cascadiance]

32. Which is why when the cold reality hits the fan for Hillary she needs to see it...

It's one thing if you want to continue to "let it ride..." in a casino and risk your own money on what might be a very risky sequence of betting... But she's betting our country's future as well as long as she stays in the race when it becomes clear that she doesn't have the votes to win.

There's a small smidgeon of room for doubt now, but that likely will get even smaller by the end of the day. I'm all for a person staying in the race if there's something to be accomplished constructively by doing so. That's why I wanted Edwards to stay in longer than he did. But at this point Hillary's starting to lose me on what constructive purpose she serves by staying in. It is only about staying in because it is her supporters' "opinion" that she can do better than Barack against McCain. That's all it is. I actually think that Edwards might have done better than either Obama or Clinton, but I realistically didn't think he had a shot at actually winning at a certain point. And I saw earlier poll data to back up thta feeling of mine too, so polling data might seem like enough evidence, but in the age of partisan polling organizations and other agendas behind them, polling data isn't good enough. It was more then carrying on a message to be a part of the Democratic platform and the nominee's platform that I wanted Edwards to stay in. I don't see that mission with Hillary. The only mission I see with her is her own personal power. And staying in just for that is destructive to the party and unity, not constructive.

[RazBerryBeret]

21. I will agree, to an extent...

Our opinions of the candidates have been colored by who WE are. that is unfortunate.
I have made an effort to disregard sex and race.

if you look at them both as older white men (what we're used to voting for!) and compare their policy, voting records, personalities, trustworthiness, diplomacy, leadership skills...if you are completely honest with yourself, it will make it all perfectly clear.

[Prophet 451]

22. With respect

I'll agree that either candidate would make a decent president. I'll also agree that the coverage of Senator Clinton's campaign has often been tainted by implied (and occasionally blatant) sexism. However, I note that teh Hillary campaign has cried "sexism!" far more often than sexism has actually been apparent and while the Hillbots (the crazed faction, as distinct from Hillary supporters) will charge that teh Obama campaign has done the same with racism, I have honestly seen far less exploitation of racial charges from teh Obama campaign than I have exploitation of sexism charges and use of the term "sexism" as an excuse coming from the Clinton camp.

[nichomachus]

23. I think the party is more

than just women looking for advancement and African-Americans wanting success. Your argument doesn't really explain other people who have strong feelings about either candidate.

[casus belli]

25. Voting to advance women or voting for someone because they are a minority is short-sighted.

As progressives, we should be encouraging people to vote for whoever will best represent our progressive views. Voting for someone because they are a woman, or a black man and for no other reason is short-sighted and foolish. It also leads to more division and less unity. If everyone were to vote for an individual because they felt they were "overdue" or that their time had come, with no regard for what their stances are on policy, it would lead to us being no different than Republicans.

That said, my support is with Obama. I will, however, have no hesitation about pushing the button for Clinton if she wraps up the nomination, because there is simply too much at stake to allow four more years of a GOP executive branch.

[busymom]

27. I agree with you...

I'm just saying that by attacking the other side so viciously, many democrats feel alienated on both sides because of the personal emotional connections. I'm not supporting Hillary because she is a woman and I'm not going to vote for Obama in the Fall because he will be the first african american presidency. I'll vote for the democratic candidate for the sake of our country.

That being said, too many people are feeling so personally attacked that they are seriously considering not voting. We need to figure that out before we risk losing to the republicans.

[casus belli]

33. I see your point...

I really regret the negative tone that the primary has taken, and I think we could all do with a little more civility. Ultimately, it's each of our responsibility to try to maintain some objectivity because with the election being this close, we may end up with the candidate who wasn't our first choice. People who take it all personally run the risk of alienating themselves to such a degree that they stay home in protest or don't vote for the eventual nominee because of unresolved hard feelings.

I really hope we can smooth it out quickly, but ultimately we're all Democrats and I have faith we'll see what's at stake and do the right thing.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Nah. The problem is Clinton. Hard to find anything positive in nuking 70 million.

[mkultra]

29. all true

positivity is the move we need to make as a whole. Elections processes have "grown" negative. Thats what needs to change.

[question everything]

30. It is really the supporters

I don't have problems with Obama, it is the nasty comments that his supporters on DU that get me to pause and to consider staying home if Obama is the nominee.

Perhaps it is not too late to add to DU "rules" about not referring to other supporters by any other description except a follower or a supporter.

[BootinUp]

36. So true, I bet you'll get some stupid arguments here though nt

[TragedyandHope]

37. K&R for reconciliation and unity!

It's not going to be easy. We've been through a lot. Both sides are going to have to give a little to meet halfway.

:kick:

[wrando]

40. bad place for reason

If you want a reasoned debate and thoughtful responses then I suggest a different forum than DU. Most, not all, of these people will attack as reflex if their lord and master is not genuflected to.

nice post, and good try

bill from ct

[Terran]

41. Would be nice if this were true, but

I see this coming up a lot lately. Now that it's looking less and less likely for HRC, posters are saying "let's unite" (which is good), but also trying to deny that any of this mess is HRC's fault. Well, I'm sorry, but much of it is her fault (or her campaign's fault). You're right, the nastiness *is* reprehensible, and it's too bad she went there.

[high density]

42. Clinton was all ready to wrap this up on Super Tuesday

This "let's see how everybody votes" thing is something only a couple of months old since she fell so sharply behind.

[publicatlarge]

43. Most of the Obama netroots supporters...

...have damaged Obama far beyond anything the Rev Wright issue has. Obama must certainly be aware of it. Since he numbers the netroots among his more prolific supporters, especially in donations to his campaign - he will never have the integrity to separate himself from the netroots haters as he has Rev Wright. It would not be politically expedient to do so.

On balance - the netroots haters have far surpassed anything Clinton has thrown out at Obama in this campaign. What does this level of hate and diviseness have to do with a message of change, unity and hope?

IF Obama comes out with a statement to disavow and denounce the extreme haters among the netroots - I would consider supporting him.

[Genevieve]

45. The problem is the Clintons. nt