It’s not the argument Randy. It’s the method.

You undoubtedly have a reading comprehension problem. I took Andrea to task for calling me a misogynist for speaking ill of Hillary, whereas I showed her that I supported someone other than Hillary for the senate seat Clinton currently holds.

If she thinks that makes me misogynist, she’s seriously wrong. If you had a shred of intellectually honesty in you, you’d acknowledge that.

Actually it’s pipe-smoking Popeye that’s my hero. Don’t make me have to eat my spinach.”

“So, if calling me a misogynist gives you the warm tinglies, Andrea, have at it. I’ll be content in knowing just how thoroughly full of shit you are.”

I think you guys have given the girls a very good insight into the direction their party has turned. She is pushed into a tough decision in November. Correct it by sitting out, or punish it by switching to the respectful and common sense one.

Nice job boys. Welcome Andrea.

As one of the few people who post here who was actually able to vote for Hillary Clinton for senate and takes great pride in the fact that he hasn’t, I can assure you Andrea that you do not know what you are talking about.

When Pat Moynihan announced that he was retiring from the senate, the first name mentioned to run for the Democrats was indeed a woman: Representative Nita Lowey, a native New Yorker and six term representative who had served the state of New York for years, managed to rid congress of the wacky Joe DioGuardi and viewed the senate as a place to serve the citizens of her state, not as a stepping stone to the presidency.

In any event, Senator Schumer decided to drop Hillary Clinton’s name and the resultiing hype overwhelmed Rep. Lowey’s chances, much to the loss of New York.

So, if calling me a misogynist gives you the warm tinglies, Andrea, have at it. I’ll be content in knowing just how thoroughly full of shit you are.

I blame Jim R.

You may want to look at this data, concerning Hillary, Obama, McCain and white voters

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/poll_mccain_beats_obama_and_hi.php

Misogyny would be Jim R’s view, that you need some sort of special protection in an exchange of arguments.

Jim R: I want Andrea on board, and predicted she would move in that direction, but she has categorically stated that she will not. That’s not my fault, or reg’s fault, or Balter’s fault, or anyone else’s beside Andrea’s.

And you might want to define “attacking” a little more carefully. Arguments on a blog don’t quite rise to the on-the-street scenario you seem to be imagining in your Tarzan rope-swinging fanatasy.

You’ve got a lot of chutzpah talking about misogynist, when you’re the one threatening to vote against the Democrats, thus against women, if your cult-leader Lyndon LaRouche…er…Hillary Clinton is not the candidate.

Quinnipiac 5/14 - but like all of the current polling on this, the difference is statistically insignificant, a point or two. Therefore, you’ve got no argument on this. (Of course, it’s the only argument anyone in a position to shift the nomination to Hillary actually cares about.)

But, yeah, let’s go with the person who’s got the highest negatives of any of the candidates by far, who had an incredible lead among all Democrats, including African-Americans, started out with a major fundraising advantage, and who had the biggest draw - and supposedly best political mind - in the Democratic party out stumping for her every day on solidly Democratic turf and couldn’t beat the skinny, black guy with the funny name who nobody had heard of a couple of years ago. That sounds right to me.

You’re going to need the Andreas when the primary is over, and I’m guessing there are a lot of Andreas reading here in the background not appreciating one damn bit the over-the-top attacks on her. It is just political stupidity coupled with lack of the confidence you claim to have.

I am a man, different, and proud to admit it. If a bunch of men ganging up on a woman doesn’t raise a natural instinct in you to defend her, or at the very least not join in, then I would say your manhood has been successfully compromised by a re-education indoctrination regime at a leftwing University, sorry that was redundant, to the detriment of women, men, society, and your common sense.

Could you patronize Andrea any more? What does her sex have to do with this? She showed up to argue the merits of her candidate and expressed the view that she would rather implode this election than support a rival Democrat. She is expressing noxious and irrational views (and is by extension probably voting for war with Iran), views that I called, and continue to call, pathological for that reason. She seems to be able to handle herself just fine, and doesn’t need a man to come to her rescue.

And incidentally, she’s the one who showed up here and in other threads with the pugnacious attitude, playing awfully loose with the facts. “Isn’t alienating to her fellow party members”? This kind of makes me think you have not been reading her comments with her apocalyptic sense of betrayal, and her intention to napalm-vote the process just to have another shot at 2012. This is cult of personality stuff, and suggests Andrea has a lack of belief in the core values of the Democratic party. Getting Hillary in is far more important than better health care coverage, defending unions…..oh, you know the list.

I’ve never seen a more graceless pack of sore heads. Some of the Hillary crowd seems intent on sitting in the corner with their frowny face on.

I’ve only heard women express their intention to choose the napalm scenario over Obama. Even Carville claims to have an undated check written out for Obama. There is an interesting intersection of racism and sexism at play here that’s hard to untangle. But Andrea’s refusal to play ball is an analogue to her derisive attitude toward black voters voting in large blocks for Obama.

By the way, I predict that any potential loss of the moron element of the southern Democratic vote due to Obama’s color or the fer’un sounding name, will be more than offset by excited young voters, and massive numbers of newly enfranchised black voters. And despite Andrea’s threats, most Hillary supporters will move over to Obama. Those that do not can help pad Bob Barr’s numbers as he siphons off just enough Republican votes to ensure that McCain cannot win.

Andrea: “Obama is a straight up loser. The black vote and the elitist left vote do not add up to victory….If she’s not on the ticket in 2008 we’ll just sit this one out. And wait for 2012.”

The truth is that the Clinton camp injected race into this forthrightly when Bill first dismissively compared Obama to Jesse (If Bill is as smart as he likes to think he is about politics, he’d know that there was absolutely no comparison between the SC primary that Jackson won and Obama’s win in 2008. Jesse ran essentially unopposed by the frontrunners, among other major differences.) And Clintonites can complain about the black vote all they want, but Obama had to win black voters away from Hillary. The Congressional Black Caucus is split, so black people aren’t following some old line politicians like sheep. When blacks lined up 80% behind the Clintons in previous polls or election cycles, they weren’t dismissed. In addition, Hillary and her supporters have blatantly played the “gender” card as well. There are groups of her supporters for whom the primary rationale is gender (Emily’s List, NOW, old-school feminists like Steinem and Jong). There’s really no other argument for Hillary among these folks.

Andreas’ also full of shit in her statistical claims - in Indiana Hillary got 52% of the women’s vote, in North Carolina she got 45% and in Pennsylvania - her strongest recent state - she got 59%. I have no idea where she gets her fantastical 65% figure. But then I have no idea where she gets a lot of her “ammo.”

If Andrea wants to sit this election out and play spoiler for 2012 because Hillary didn’t win the nomination - or more to the point, isn’t being handed it despite her loss on the ground, by the rules she agreed to and supported going in - I don’t know what to say that could be construed as polite. The bitterness and sense of entitlement of this wing of HIilary supporters knows no bounds. It’s inconceivable to imagine the Obama campaign following a similiar path were the numbers turned equally to Hillary’s advantage. The gracious concession would have happened a while back. And if folks think that this kind of seige mentality - which really is a rerun of the old Clinton psychology under threat of impeachment and not a rational mindset in the context of a Democratic primary contest where voters are deciding the process as it proceeds - is a positive trait for a prospective President they’re kidding themselves. It’s George Bush all over again.

Andrea can also take the charges of “elitism” against Obama voters and shove it up her ass. The Clinton campaign is a case study in the old politics of elites. You’d be hardpressed to find a more perfect coalition of retread political hacks, old-school femiinist groups representing upper-class white women, union bureaucrats who work from the top down and can’t organize shit, and Beltway cynics. Tired…and not as powerful as they assumed they were when they went into this thing.

Also, current polls show Obama and Clinton doing about the same against McCain - one of the most recent I’ve seen has Obama doing better and one has Hillary doiing better, but the differences are nil in the context of these polling samples. So that just doesn’t hold water. Unless, of course, Andrea and those of like mind WANT it to come true. WANT four more years of Bush-like policies so that Hillary can get another shot in 2012. Now THAT’s pathological. I’ve said since day one of this race that if Hillary won it, I’d vote for her although I didn’t much like her. If she manages to steal the nomination, which I doubt, I’d still probably vote for her. That folks on the other side of the Democratic primary can’t deal with a fair win by their opponent and continue to denigrate him speaks volumes.

I don’t know what’s more disturbing - the fake “facts”, the dismissiveness toward African-Americans or the “take my ball and go home” attitude.

I can guarantee you that if Hillary had managed to be consistently ahead and sew up the nomination according to any rational set of expectations and dherence to the rules and the voice of the voters, I’d be making my peace with the prospect simply on the basis of how destructive a McCain administration looks to be. (And I’d be catching shit for it here.) I had no idea going into this thing that the Clinton crowd - from top to bottom - were so irrational. I knew she went into this thing assuming she owned the nomination, but I didn’t think her supporters were so mired in a sense of entitlement. Nor did I suspect that her team was so politically incompetent - which is a BIG warning sign as regards which camp can win the general. So come down off the ledge Andrea. The Democrats have their best candidate in my memory - one who, as the Mississippi congressional win shows - won’t weaken the Democratic party like the Clintons did when they had their last shot. Hillary blew it when she voted to authorize the Iraq war. She deserved to lose on that failure of leadership and judgement - an act of cowardice really that defined her candidacy in the minds of many grass-roots Democrats.

And she is the pathological supporter? At least she isn’t rude, crass, name calling, and alienating to her fellow party members. Give me pathological.

Nader voters were hoping to send a message to the party that the right leaning, corporate sponsored sell-out of the working class would not be tolerated any longer. Some people feel strongly that this was misguided, and yet there was a serious political purpose behind it.

Please tell me what purpose you stand for, what influence you hope to have with this stand: If she’s not on the ticket in 2008 we’ll just sit this one out. And wait for 2012.