In an attempt to appease and mollify the Clintons, Sen. Barack Obama has practically handed over the control of the Democratic Convention to them. Hillary will have her roll call vote, and she and her husband will deliver prime time speeches.

The Clinton mafia has even secured language in the Democratic platform condemning the media for its “sexist” coverage of Hillary’s campaign. I know that only political junkies read the Democratic platform, but Obama should not have agreed to inserting such a blatant lie. Hillary lost because her campaign was a disorganized nest of snakes and sycophants, and not because of sexism in the media.

Clinton loyalists endlessly repeat that Obama must reach out to the 18 million who voted for Hillary during the primaries. Most of those 18 million are now solidly behind Obama; it’s only a few Hillary diehards who are still swooning over their queen.

These dead-enders are not blue-collar workers or the working poor, but middle-aged bitter women who saw Hillary as their last chance to see a woman in the White House before they croak. These dinosaur feminists don’t represent most women, or even most feminists. They are from the old school of feminism, and they are characterized by a hatred of men and a love for women. They wouldn’t consider voting for Obama unless he was castrated.

This cabal is willing to destroy the Democratic Party to demonstrate their inordinate affection for Hillary. The Hillary partisans have warned Obama not to choose a woman as his running mate, if it’s not their dearly beloved. This proves that there infatuation with Hillary takes preeminence over women’s rights.

Nothing short of naming Hillary as vice-president will satisfy them. Obama is set to announce his VP any day now, and I’m delighted that none of the speculation centers on Hillary.

The Democratic Party should be about hope and change, and not about a cult of personality. Obama has bent over backwards catering to Hillary and her surly husband. Stop the appeasement, Obama should write-off the Clinton die-hards once and for all.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Some angry comments I gathered on the Internet:

“Obama will NOT get my vote, and one step more,” Ellen Thorp, a 59-year-old flight attendant from Houston told me. “I have been a Democrat for 38 years. As of today, I am registering as an independent. Yee Haw!”

Jean B. Grillo, an “over 50″ writer in lower Manhattan, was pretty straightforward: “I am so tired as a white, ultra-liberal, McGovern-voting, civil-rights marching, anti-war fighting highly educated professional woman who totally supports Hillary Clinton to be attacked and vilified as racist and or dumb.”

Shauna Morris, a 44-year-old lawyer from Largo, Fla., said, “I am upper-middle class, and I still can’t stand him — and it has nothing to do with race, believe me.”

“Many of us feel slighted,” said Lynn Eyrich Harvey, 76, from Los Gatos, Calif. “We feel that years of supporting the party is unimportant, that we are to sit down and shut up — but be sure to vote Democratic in November.”

“How Obama’s campaign has treated Hillary will not be forgotten,” Janet Rogers, 55, who runs a Bed and Breakfast in Medina, Ohio. “I will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. My husband and friends all feel the same way.”

.
.
.
.
.

LOL!

If you look at my postings on this blog, one thing is clear — I do not dislike Hillary as a person. I do dislike her tactics — race-baiting and so forth…

If she had beaten Obama fairly, I would have supported her unconditionally — for Republicans are FILTHY SLIME no human being in their right mind should support.

Hillary was not beaten by Obama with the help of the press for she had “FOX ‘Bigot’ News” plus numerous right-wing radio pundits pontificating to whites “frightened of black men” working for her, while MSNBC and left-wing radio favored Obama.

She just lost, plain and simple — to a better prepared candidate. Her arrogance, disorganization, lack of foresight and sense of entitlement did her in…and here are some more reasons why she lost.

…and by the way, there are millions of females, especially younger ones supporting Obama….why not you?

This prompts me to ask the question: “What the heck is the matter with these women?“…Obama has been a gentleman all through!

It seems to me that some of these women have taken the “I get the house and the children ’syndrome,’” a common divorce settlement in American courts too far!

…or is it Feminism taken too far? Here is something to chew on.

Obama has his work cut out for him — calming down millions of irate, sometimes dumb and racist white women.

It will be a very difficult task after the deranged narcissism exhibited by Ma. Clinton during this just concluded “Silly” primary season!

Ladies, remember to THINK before you cast your ballot in November — Your only other options will be McDUMB, McWarMonger, McSAME, McBUSH, McTHUG, McReTHUGlican and McBOMB….who sincerely believe in the following: click here to read

The just concluded democratic primary was not an episode of “Divorce Court,” rather it was a contest leading to the election of the most “powerful person” in the world — Obama floored the Clinton machine amidst “assassination threats,” blatant racism and rampant mis-information — fired from all directions, and he fully deserves to compete in the grand finale — in November, against ReTHUGlican John McBOMB.

By the way, Hillary gave a very strong speech today, and hopefully she will follow up to help Obama get elected.

If she follows up effectively, all will be forgiven. If she doesn’t and Obama is defeated because of her “White Female” core constituency — she better remember that in 2012(if she decides to run again) she may experience multiple episodes of “Angry Black Females,” “Angry Black Men,” “Angry Left-Wing Liberals” and “Angry Young Males and Females - White & Black” — Obama’s core constituency.

My guns are now aimed squarely at the forehead of McDUMB ….who by the way, and I sincerely believe, is not a bad man, but the thought of victory for Right-Wing ReTHUGlicanism just makes me want to puke!

Popularity: 28% [?]

By Harold Meyerson

Clinton’s Two-State Two-Step: Making Florida and Michigan’s delegates a cause for democracy and feminism makes a mockery of both.

Columnist - Harold Meyerson
On Saturday, when the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Committee meets to determine the fate of Florida and Michigan’s delegations to this summer’s convention, it will have some company. A group of Hillary Clinton supporters has announced it will demonstrate outside.

That Clinton has impassioned supporters, many of whom link her candidacy to the feminist cause, hardly qualifies as news.

And it’s certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment, just as Barack Obama has been on the receiving end of bigoted treatment. (Obama has even been subjected to anti-Muslim bigotry despite the fact that he’s not Muslim.) But somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the seating of Michigan and Florida not merely with Clinton’s prospects but with the causes of democracy and feminism — an equation that makes a mockery of democracy and feminism.

Clinton herself is largely responsible for this absurdity. Over the past couple of weeks, she has equated the seating of the two delegations with African Americans’ struggle for suffrage in the Jim Crow South, and with the efforts of the democratic forces in Zimbabwe to get a fair count of the votes in their presidential election.

Somehow, I doubt that the activists opposing Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe would appreciate this equation.

But the Clintonistas who have called Saturday’s demonstration make it sound as if they’ll be marching in Selma in support of a universal right to vote. The DNC, says one of their Web sites, “must honor our core democratic principles and enfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida.”

Had Florida and Michigan conducted their primaries the way the other 48 states conducted their own primaries and caucuses — that is, in accord with the very clear calendar laid down by the DNC well before the primaries began — then Clinton’s marchers would be utterly justified in their claims. But when the two states flouted those rules by moving their primaries outside the prescribed time frame, the DNC, which gave neither state a waiver to do so, decreed that their primaries would not count and enjoined all presidential candidates from campaigning in those states. Obama and John Edwards complied with the DNC’s dictates by removing their names from the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not.

Seating Michigan in full would mean the party validates the kind of one-candidate election (well, 1.03, to give Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel, who also remained on the ballot, their due) that is more common in autocracies than democracies. It would mean rewarding the one serious candidate who didn’t remove her name from the ballot when all her rivals, in deference to the national party rules, did just that.

What’s particularly outrageous is that the Clinton campaign supported the calendar, and the sanctions against Michigan and Florida, until Clinton won those states and needed to have their delegations seated.

Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties. (The only member of the committee to vote against them was an Obama supporter from Florida.) Harold Ickes, a committee member, leading Clinton strategist and acknowledged master of the political game, said, “This committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced.” Patty Solis Doyle, then Clinton’s campaign manager, further affirmed the decision. “We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” she said, referring to the four states that the committee authorized to hold the first contests. “And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar.”

Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto — the facto in question being Clinton’s current need to seat the delegations whose seatings she had opposed when she thought she’d cruise to the nomination.

Clinton’s supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it’s situational ethics.

To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels.

Popularity: 24% [?]

When a male reporter rips into Hillary Clinton, he is accused by the Clintonistas of being sexist. I’ve written several essays exposing the hypocrisy, veniality and corruption of the First Lady, and the response has been very illuminating. More than a few emails questioned my liberal and feminist credentials, but none has questioned the veracity of my charges leveled against the senator from New York. Read the full story

Popularity: 20% [?]

Hillary Clinton likes to portray herself as a feminist hero; she claims that if she secures the Democratic nomination and wins the general election it will be a victory for women. Read the full story

Popularity: 20% [?]