Maybe this is the first salvo in John McCain naming a female as VP? But who would that be? No one remotely serious has been mentioned.

But I like the theme: Because Democrats are committed to gender equity Obama should be punished for not vetting Hillary.

Because Republicans aren't committed to gender equity to begin with it doesn't matter if they never even consider a woman as VP (or prez), so women are better off voting for Republicans.

Oh right, that's just SO logical.

What you're missing is that there are incredible women out there (I've met!) who are going to vote McCain because they're pissed off that Hillary didn't make it and that they consider the media the primary reason why: Obama would never have made it if he'd been a white guy or a woman. That's the exact sentiment I've heard and it's been only two women in my life; but they're sane and they're life long democrats so I can't just dismiss them.

There's a faction out there that would have swallowed a Hillary VP. Then there are those who are PUMAs and never would vote Obama. I think that there's nothing to do but tear McCain down for those people.

I'm encouraged that Pelosi has indicated that Obama won't make Kerry's mistake: the convention will be about decrying Bush and chanting McCain-Bush as many times as possible. I think that'll bring a lot of people back in the fold. I think the Clintons can do a lot of that too.

At the end of the day, there will always be dead-enders. McCain has to worry, however, how a convention that ties him to Bush and his own convention leading off with Bush-Cheney will look to voters. The Republicans IMO don't have a case to make to the public; and Bush has taken Iraq off the table in a way favorable to the democrats.

The fundamentals of this election and the superiority of the Obama ground game give me comfort. This will be a close election; but I think Obama will seal the deal.

I thought that it was really about Kristol finding his inner democrat, in that he slights Biden for not having gotten enough votes in the primary. Apparently Obama is breaking a previously unwritten rule that you have to pick the runner-up, if you pick someone who ran in the primaries. (Yeah, I don't remember that rule, either.)

I was gonna try to figure that out, but my brain broke when I tried to understand a way in which Biden and Clinton's foreign policy experience is "basically comparable". Only in Kristol-ville.

I doubt that a lot of Clinton supporters are watching Fox News anyway, or paying attention to anything Bill Kristol has to say.

what is worse than than bill kristol's column in the NYTimes

bloggers writing about bill kristol's column in the NYTimes

(1) assuming there are women that will vote for McCain because of Hillary, how many don't live in NY, CA or DC? Last time I checked, McCain will not be competitive in either place. I remain skeptical that Missouri and Ohio are full of these type of voters.

(2) Hillary is going to crush this at the convention. There is nothing that would elevate her star higher than showing "class" and "unity" to the punditocracy. (Some will minimize it by saying what do you expect.) If she does not, then she will NEVER get the support of the party if Obama lost. Never. This is a political no brainer.

(3) this is the best they got?

Your callous overestimation of my brains and emotional stability insults me as badly as Obama did. Go ahead and pretend I'm too smart to fall for this shit. Every time you say it, I'm more determined to vote for McCain.

This was one of the most nauseating columns Bill Kristol has written in a long time.

I can't wait for those presidential debates when his hero McCain will get his head handed to him by Obama.

"Go ahead and pretend I'm too smart to fall for this shit."

Ok "Emma", we won't pretend you're smart. Pretending you were smart was a reach anyway...

Ultimately, it seems most of the Republicans' election-year strategy is predicated on the notion that voters must be played for suckers. It's kind of sad, really.

What's sad is that that strategy has worked almost flawlessly in the 10 national elections in the last 40 years, having 'won' election for Nixon, twice, Raygun, twice, and the Busheviks, thrice.

Oh yeah. The right (with the help of Old Media) practically canonized Hillary in an effort to damage the Democratic presumptive nominee (mathematically, as of February 22). Kristol's editorial is merely a continuation of their situational self-righteousness.

Republicans, and their apologists and enablers, continue to use the same tired old tricks because they continue to work. Negative ads work, as witnessed by John McCain's steady rise in the polls. Outright lying to the voters has a salutary effect on one's standings, and the proof is in the pudding. Republicans are not builders; no, they are in the business of tearing down what others try to build.

Bill Kristol's newly-discovered admiration for Hillary Clinton goes only so far as she serves as a means to an end, and that end is planting John McCain's wrinkled old ass in the White House. Barack Obama would not sufficiently doom himself to Kristol's satisfaction if he chose Jeremiah Wright as a running mate. Similarly, the elevation of McCain to the office of president will satisfy Republicans that their tactics can ensure continued Republican wins regardless how fertile the field for a Democrat. Bill Kristol is confident that the voters are stupid and self-obsessed. Is he wrong? You tell me.

Any woman, regardless how smart her friends rate her, who chooses to vote for John McCain just because Hillary didn't get the nod, deserves....well, John McCain for a president.

Hitler's miracle weapons that were supposed to stave off total humiliating defeat never materialized; neither will Kristol's. If he's lucky, he'll be doing a live Saturday morning horoscope cartoon blog for The National Enquirer by this time next year. He'd certainly get more readers than he does with the wishy-washy, soiled toilet paper that he's churning out now.

That is, if he's lucky. VERY lucky....

Ultimately, it seems most of the Republicans' election-year strategy is predicated on the notion that voters must be played for suckers.

Why limit it to election-year strategy? Doesn't that apply to their entire policy?

Butch - on the off-chance that you aren't a Carpetbagger alum like some of us who followed Steve Benen here, you should know that he's bringing with him a number of tongue-in-cheekers who make fun of the wingers and ringers by pretending to be one. Emmahose is most likely one of them...

I'm hoping a lot of the Hillary supporters are just threatening to vote for McCain in order to make Obama squirm, to punish him for never denouncing, sometimes encouraging, and undoubtedly benefiting from the blatant misogyny we saw in the primaries.

If Obama had had one "Sister Souljah" moment on the campaign trail, when Hillary was dealing with all the crap about "likeability" and being called things like "witch" by idiots like Chris Matthews, and worse by others -- if he had stood up and said something like, "I am just as zero-tolerant of sexist attacks against Senator Clinton as I am about racist attacks against me" -- he would not be so alienated from so many of Hillary's supporters.

A perfect opportunity, for example, would have been when he was addressing Hillary's likeability during a debate. Instead of saying, "What has that got to do with being commander in chief, and why is she the only candidate being asked about this, after decades of public service?" he replied snarkily, "She's likeable enough."

That said, if her supporters really believe in Hillary, they'll heed her message: You have a lot more in common with Obama than you do with McCain.

If sexism is a legitimate concern for them, and not just a pose they strike, they should do everything in their power to keep McCain out of the White House, however much they dislike his opponent.

No one likes to be thought a fool by shameless con-men...I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if these tactics have the opposite of the intended effect.

I would expect them to have precisely their intended effect -- the more you pour into a con, the less likely you are to admit you've been conned. People walk away from a carnival booth after a few bucks, but ride bear markets all the way down.

...there are incredible women out there (I've met!) who are going to vote McCain because they're pissed off that Hillary didn't make it and that they consider the media the primary reason why...and they're life long democrats..."

Life long Democrats? Voting for McCain because they're mad at the media?

Oh my.

It's not just Kristol. Yesterday I heard Pat Buchanan make the same argument.

That's the exact sentiment I've heard and it's been only two women in my life; but they're sane and they're life long democrats so I can't just dismiss them.

Posted by: Rhoda at 12:40 PM

But you'll have to. Because those women will be voting against their own self interest out of spite and wounded pride and that is a less than rational or sensible way to make a decision.

If they are "sane and life long Democrats" and they can come to the conclusion after the FUBAR last 8 years that they can best serve this country, their families, their friends and global peace and order by voting for McBush, then at a minimum I question their judgement.

If they can compromise their vote knowing full well that none of that is true and all of those folks will be worse off with a McBush administration but they don't care because its more important to make their pissy statement, then Rhoda, you need new friends.

Davis, do you remember the argument "The Duke and the Dauphin" made in HUCKLEBERRY FINN? They used to do their con so that the first day people would show up at their 'shows.' They knew they'd get a big audience the second night because everybody would want to watch their neighbors be as much fools as they were. The third night, everybody would be ready with the rotten fruit, but they'd be out of town already.

Not that it will ever happen, but it would be hysterically funny if someone ran an ad, the day after McCain announces his running mate, slamming him for not picking Hillary who got 18 million votes. The McCain campaign has helpfully provided the template; all that needs to be done is swap out pictures of Obama for McCain and clips of Hillary saying bad stuff about Obama for clips of Hillary saying bad stuff about McCain.

For all of you that aren't PA readers, Emmahose is a parody of Emmarose, a diehard, militant Hillary supporter, Obama hater.

You are correct, Stephen, it is tongue in cheek.

I felt the same thing when I read Kristol's blog screed last night and at the time noted:

In plain truth the entire wingnut family still loathes the Clinton's with a visceral hatred that goes beyond reason. As such, they believe the rest of the country shares at least a part of that hatred. (Ever since she announced, they had prayed she would) get... onto the ticket ( either as the nominee, or barring that as Obama's running mate.) (In their minds) it would be just what they need to take (Obama) out because of the votes she will cost him and McSame squeaks through.

They were praying she would be the winner for the Dems this fall.....There's probably a Yucca mountain cavern full of oppo research they had piled up for her that now is useless.

No wonder they are frustrated. Worse yet, everything they have tried throwing at Obama just isn't sticking (and) now they are having to deal with the houses problem.

Rove must be down in the cellar rummaging through his vials and potions. He obviously knows this (year it) is going to take a king hell kinda curare to slow down (the Dems) and even that may not be enough. Gee life is fun right now!!!!

This isn't an original idea from Kristol (he doesn't have such things.) It is part of the latest GOP spin machine effort to gin itself out of the current mess they are in by hoping to divide the Democrats. They no doubt believe there are a vast number of PUMAs out there and they can create a frenzy of anger which will cause a true schism in the party. (The GOP thinks nature is something you sell, not visit and so they never realized that PUMAs are extremely solitary creatures. They just don't understand why you never hear phrases like "a pack of PUMAs," or a "herd of PUMAs." There just aren't that many PUMAs out there and they generally spend most of their time in caves or on rock outcroppings looking to jump on the innocent -- a very GOP trait in its own way.)

They are also trying to spin the houses thing with a truly novel argument....Mark Halprin of Time on ABC This Week this morning argued that the issue is terrible for OBAMA (for Christ sake). Halprin, without a trace of a smile argues that the houses issue is so low and vile and nasty that it opens the door for McCain to come back with Rezko and Wright, as if somehow it was only because of McSame's mavericky purity of spirit that his campaign, until now, has been absolutely adhering to taking the high road in all of its messaging.

But now that he is being accused of a fact....that he and his wife own so many houses he couldn't answer a public question as to how many... Boy oh Boy that does it. NOW the gloves are gonna come off.

We've been polite up until now, but no longer baby. We're going into the cellar after the Commie radical weathermen, pinko community organizers, sweetheart land deals, radical preachers celebrity, empty suit, not ready for prime time stuff. We're gonna go full bore on "guilt by association," and by innuendo. Now normally we would never do such a thing because we are pledged to run a clean campaign, but not this time.

We really didn't want to, but damn, if you are going to make fun of us because we don't know how many houses we own....

or because we don't know what car we drive...

or because we can't remember how we voted on key issues...

or because we can't remember the names of countries that longer exist...

or the difference between the key factions in Iraq (or maybe it was Iran), well By God.....you asked for it.

Pathetic!!!!

I am surprised at how wrong everyone here, including Steve, is in reading the McCain "Hillary ad". It is not directed towards PUMAs. It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton supporters. It is about calling Barack Obama a nancy-boy, period. It is a prototypical Republican attack that tries to emasculate and feminize the Democrat. McCain is not trying to pull one over on Hillary supporters, he is trying to pull one over on non-Hillary supporters by calling Obama a fag.

A possible female running mate for McCain would be Heather Wilson, a Representative from New Mexico. She spent a decade in the Air Force. She has been able to win a competitive district five times and may enable McCain to take the state. She has a very conservative voting record, but has successfully been able to portray herself as a moderate. Lastly, whenever there is a debate on energy issues, Republicans trot her out as an energy authority, so she can demagogue issues such as more drilling as a solution with the best of them.

Paging Insane Fake Professor.

Perfect column for a resurection.

Photenhauer is a feminist working for McMaverickety, so Im sure Kristol will be playing the part of a femininst...at least until the election is over.

"What you're missing is that there are incredible women out there (I've met!) who are going to vote McCain because they're pissed off that Hillary didn't make it and that they consider the media the primary reason why: Obama would never have made it if he'd been a white guy or a woman. That's the exact sentiment I've heard and it's been only two women in my life; but they're sane and they're life long democrats so I can't just dismiss them."

I don't dismiss them. I just consider them to be fucking stupid beyond belief.

Mark my words, moron feminists. If Obama does not make it, Hillary is dead politically. And so is every feminist cause you can think of. I have listened to all that feminist SHIT for years and years, and nodded in agreement. No more. If Obama loses, Hillary and all women candidates lose.

Vadranor: PLEASE let it be Heather Wilson. I've been wondering how we could make efficient use of the US Attorney firings, and she'd kick the door wide open.

Bill Kristol is only on TV because of his dad. Bill is a tool. Irving Kristol met Bill’s mom at a Troskyite social event in New York. He later become very conservative. See how well Irving writes:

"I have no regret about that episode in my life. Joining a radical movement when one is young is very much like falling in love when one is young. The girl may turn out to be rotten, but the experience of love is so valuable it can never be entirely undone by the ultimate disenchantment."

I think that is very good.

Next up: Kristol will claim that McCain has more empathy than Obama for the homeless because McCain also sometimes has the problem of not knowing where he is going to sleep later in the week.

I am not going to vote for McCain because I think he is senile, ignorant, and in the matter of foreign affairs, flat-out crazy. But I will not vote for Obama either, because he has treated Hillary like dirt and blatantly snubbed Wes Clark. These two people are national treasures, and Hillary got nearly half the vote. Obama has no right - none - to ignore that. He is an arrogant, sexist, elitist, mincing opportunist. I am weary of this show, of Kennedy, Pelosi, the Axelrod operator, and all the "liberals" who cover up corruption at every turn, protect Bush and imagine they have the right to dictate the political show. The Democrats are getting as corrupt and smug as the Republicans. Repeating "change" over and over is not a solution.

Shorter Lee: If I don't get to win, I'm takin' my ball and goin' HOME!

And what's with the "Wes Clark got snubbed" bullshit? Wes Clark, for the record, is a HORRIBLE CAMPAIGNER, as we all saw first-hand back in 2004. He's not OWED the VP slot any more than Hillary is.

I'm assuming you're not familiar with a term that goes back all the way to the Greeks: to the victor goes the spoils. Obama won. It's up to him to choose the candidate he feels gives him the strongest ticket. It couldn't be Hillary, thanks to her "CIC threshold" comment and others, and to her meddling husband, and Wes Clark? He's a guy who's NEVER HELD AN ELECTED OFFICE and is a proven lousy campaigner to boot.

In short, your post reads like nothing so much as "WAHHHHHHHH!!!! WAH, WAH, WAHHHHHHHH!!!" Grow the hell up.

The key that Lee is not the Democrat he claims to be is his description of Obama as 'mincing.' The Republican attempt to play the 'gay card' against any democrat is a tip-off.

How is Obama a Nancy boy for NOT picking Hillary Clinton? I'm not following.

In all honesty, I am having trouble following this whole meme -- I can't remember the last time a presidential candidate was criticized for who he FAILED to pick as VP. This is McCain in full reactive mode.

I feel that the republicans are just trying to divide the democrats. I really don't think Kristol cares one bit about Hillary. After all they were hoping to run against her, I have a feeling they had her as the presumed democratic nominee for president and they had been gathering dirt against her and Bill for a long time in preparation.

you know, Lee, i bet a lot of prominent Democrats would love to be treated like dirt by Obama if by "treated like dirt" one means their family is given not 1 but 2 prime time speaking slots at convention, and Obama makes a personal appeal to heavy-hitters to contribute to their debt reduction even though they were Obama's opponents and said harmful things about him.

methinks thou dost protest too much to credibily present yourself as a Democrat.

oh - and on that list of Democrats who have enabled Republican corruption, I'm curious: Clinton has been in the Senate longer than Obama. Could you remind me what all steps she has taken to rein in Bush? Which articles of impeachment she has sponsored? Because my memory may be cloudy, but all I remember is her voting 'yes' on Kyl-Lieberman, which actually rewarded and empowered the crooks you want us to think you are complaining about.

(and for all of the CB-ers who know how much I argued with you in Clinton's defense, yes it pains me to write this post. But its worth it. Lee's nuts.)

Lee is either a Repukeliscum troll (very likely) or a total moron. I have read whining bitches like Lee over and over. When I was deciding between Hillary and Barack, I noticed that the stupid bitch count was way way up in the Hillary supporters, while the Barack supporters were sensible and clear. Dumbfucks like Lee will ensure that Hillary's career is over, since sensible persons dislike fucking stupid bitches over all others, and that's who Hillary attracts.

zeitgeist: (and for all of the CB-ers who know how much I argued with you in Clinton's defense, yes it pains me to write this post. But its worth it. Lee is nuts.)

Yep.
That's a very huge post Z.
And thanks... for pulling the wings of that nut.

The PUMA thing is just a Republican mind-fake. Ignore it.

Really.

POed Lib:
"Mark my words, moron feminists. If Obama does not make it, Hillary is dead politically. And so is every feminist cause you can think of. I have listened to all that feminist SHIT for years and years, and nodded in agreement."

You sir, are no lib.

POed Lib, another sign that "Lee" is a wing-nut is calling Hillary a "national treasure."

Only a sarcastic troll would say that.

"Hillary is dead politically. And so is every feminist cause you can think of. "

Bad logic. Broken.

And swearing like a gang-banger might feel good, but it does nothing for your cred.

Don't need to swear to be strong.

Well said, zeitgeist, and great to see you back! And I have to agree, in a milder fashion, with POed Lib, above - quite a few people continue to confuse "courtesy" and "respect". Everyone is entitled to the former, and everybody has to earn the latter. Nobody is automatically entitled to respect simply because of who they are (except maybe high-ranking military officers and the police, and even that is more courtesy than respect). A great deal of the "disrespect" Mrs. Clinton experienced - hopefully without dragging all that out again - was actually discourtesy; but it had quite a crowd screaming "misogyny", as if they had just discovered the word. Perhaps some of them had. For the record, it is defined as "a hatred of women". In that framework, was mockery of the way Mrs. Clinton laughs misogyny? Hardly. Discourteous? That's how it strikes me.

Similarly, if you get nearly half the vote, you still lose. There is no principle that says you have to get SOMETHING for coming so close, or Vice-President Gore would have served under George W. Bush.

Hey, the Republicans - through their whore, the media - regularly suggest Obama is "feminine"!! Maybe they meant it all along as a compliment? Ya think?

Mrs. Clinton was entitled to take her shot like anyone else, regardless of gender. She did, and she lost. Bound up in that package of rights was the right to expect that every dirty trick would be used against her, to prevent her from winning - just like any other candidate - and that's pretty much the way it happened. You can blame the media for that if you like, but please don't tell me the media is in Obama's pocket. The media despises Obama, would like to see him lose, and is in McCain's pocket. If you think somehow that you will strike a blow for sisterhood and the advancement of a feminist agenda by voting for McCain, I'm afraid I can't follow your logic.

That would be because it is absent.

"You sir, are no lib. "

Hey, buddy, WHAT-E-VAR.

But, regardless of your contempt for me, mark my words. Hillary's fate, and the fate of every female politician in the Democratic Party, rides with Barack. He carries their hopes. If he fails, feminism fails for my lifetime, and I will remember.

But this is probably not important. Barack is not gonna fail, since the Hillary supporters will reason correctly, and vote for Barack. That's my belief.

"quite a few people continue to confuse "courtesy" and "respect".

I had this trouble with military-type relatives. They use the word "respect" to mean a show of deference, not a mark of admiration.

I suppose in the military you need to pretend to respect loathsome superiors, and it's best to fool yourself into thinking you do, so as to never make the mistake of showing them what you really think. ( feel. )

It couldn't be Hillary, thanks to her "CIC threshold" comment and others, and to her meddling husband

Scooby Dooby Primary! "And I would have made it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids! Bill, I'm talking to you, asshole!"

POed Lib: You are way, way out of bounds. Hillary doesn't represent or hold sway over all women politicians, all women or the "future of feminism" in any but the most hysterical minds. Get a grip--and get your criticism of her within defensible parameters.

"POed Lib: You are way, way out of bounds. Hillary doesn't represent or hold sway over all women politicians, all women or the "future of feminism" in any but the most hysterical minds. Get a grip--and get your criticism of her within defensible parameters."

Whoa, there, buddy. I am not criticizing Hillary, who appears rational and sensible. Nope, it's her followers, the hysterical bitches, that I am critiquing. But Hillary's fate is linked to her hysterical bitch followers, for good or ill. If they rally around Barack, all is well. If not, Hillary's fate is sealed.

She is tied by the ankles to Barack. if he goes down, she goes with him.

it took me a while to wade through the tone and get to the substance of POed Lib, but as the last post explains it, I think I actually agree with at least part of what PO'd is saying:

Hill's alleged die-hards are actually doing her a disservice by greatly raising her stakes. If they throw a tantrum and Obama loses, the PUMAs aren't out anything -- but Hillary likely is.

(I)t's fascinating to see Kristol suddenly become a feminist. He's never expressed any interest in gender equality before, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Come now, Steve, don't you remember Kristol and his fellow conservatives' neofeminist support of Paula Jones back in the day?

Hill's alleged die-hards are actually doing her a disservice by greatly raising her stakes.

Nothing wrong with that analysis. It's these that are on the far side of too many skipped anger management classes:

"If Obama does not make it...every feminist cause you can think of [is dead politically]."

"Hillary's fate, and the fate of every female politician in the Democratic Party, rides with Barack. He carries their hopes. If he fails, feminism fails for my lifetime, and I will remember."

Eye-fucking-roll. No one has been harder on Clinton dead enders than I, and the stakes in this election couldn't be bigger, but what POed Lib has totally in common with PUMAs is assigning a comically overblown importance to the followers of a single female candidate. Reminds me of stuck-in-1970 Tom Cleaver and his screams of "Hillary's bimbo supporters have destroyed teh feminism forevah!" Yawn.

POed Lib: But Hillary's fate is linked to her hysterical bitch followers, for good or ill.

Then it would behoove everyone to learn to distinguish between the two. I wouldn't be surprised if we were hearing the same vis-a-vis minority rights if Obama had lost, which would be just as hyperbolic and wrong.

Thanks Steve -- you've done it again. You inspired another of my limericks: Kristolizing Feminism.

Every time I hear "PUMA" it makes me think of "cougar", and sexist though the latter term may be, I find it pretty damn funny, given that the PUMAs chose that name for themselves.

burro: If (the PUMAs) are "sane and life long Democrats" and they can come to the conclusion after the FUBAR last 8 years that they can best serve this country, their families, their friends and global peace and order by voting for McBush, then at a minimum I question their judgement.

This really begs the question of whether the typical PUMA really is "a sane and lifelong Democrat". I suspect many of these (white, upper-middle-class, corporate and professional) woman are basically moderate Rockefeller Repukes at heart. However they may label themselves, I doubt they're all that committed to feminism, let alone other progressive ideals. They like Hillary precisely because she's a conservative DNC Dem, they favor a pro-business agenda, they don't have much use for their nonwhite or poor white "sisters". Reproductive rights? These well-heeled women know that they'll always be able to procure *their* abortions, no matter what happens.

For the GOP and its publicists to woo them is no great stretch.

You heard it here first: The Big Tent Republican party's nominee John McCain will select Hillary Clinton as his running mate. And he will do this for the women in America.

Emma, of course the smart thing for you to do is vote for the candidate who holds the opposite policy positions from the candidate you supported. After all you didn't support Hillary because of her policy positions did you? You supported her because she is a woman.

I am a bit amazed at this attitude if I can't have the candidate I supported then I will support a war monger who has vowed to appoint supreme cout justices that will immediately work to deny and take rights away from women.

Every time you bring up wars and Supreme Court justices, it just makes me more determined to vote for John McCain to punish you for continuing to talk about this stuff. When you tell people what we're doing is stupid, it just makes us more determined to be stupid. It's on you.

"When you tell people what we're doing is stupid, it just makes us more determined to be stupid. It's on you."

{snark}"When you tell people what we're doing is stupid, it just makes us more determined to be stupid. It's on you."{/snark}

One of the reasons I've long doubted the PUMAs' and other dead-enders' alleged feminism (and outrage at real and perceived offenses) was that the outrage was ever so selective.

Samantha Power says Hillary's a monster? Off with her head, the bitch! Geraldine Ferraro says Obama got where he's at via affirmative action? How dare we object to what the national treasure says; it's nothing but the truth! The media calls Michelle Obama "baby mama"? Yawn; she's no sister to us, true feminists.

Lemony Orange

Rhoda: Obama would never have made it if he'd been a white guy or a woman.

Right...
- Obama would never have made it if he'd been someone else.
- A white guy or woman would have made it if they'd been Obama.
- They didn't make it because they weren't Obama.

What a patently ridiculous line of argument.

Personally, I am puzzled.

Joe Biden ran for president several times and each time received negligible votes. Hillary Clinton ran one time and received almost as many votes as Obama (perhaps more, depending on how you address Florida and Michigan.) She carried the big states, including Ohio, Massachusetts, New York and California. How does it make sense to select such a poor vote-getter as Biden?

eric: Hillary is going to crush this at the convention. There is nothing that would elevate her star higher than showing "class" and "unity" to the punditocracy.

I expect that her call to support Obama will be quite articulate, clear and persuasive -- at least to women who are tempted to vote against Obama/Biden. It really makes no sense to vote for McCain over Obama on an issue of feminism, and Hillary will list all of the reasons why.

MatthewRMarler-Biden isn't married to Bill Clinton.

Give it a little thought and do you think it would be a good thing for Obama's administration to be associated with Bill Clinton and all his shady dealings with rich business people and hobnobbing with celebrities? If Hillary could control the guy Monica would never have sunk her teeth into him-or whatever.

How does it make sense to select such a poor vote-getter as Biden? -MatthewRMarler

To begin with, second place in the primaries, no matter how close, nets you nothing. There is no rule dictating that the second place contender be given a spot on the ticket.

Second, it's a bigger issue than just the number of Democrats that voted for her in the primaries. Governing beyond the campaign, compatibility, and many other factors have to be considered.

zeitgeist, an ardent Clinton supporter and someone I credit with personally expanding my knowledge of Clinton, made a great argument against her as VP last night. Essentially, it would be hard for one President to govern with another in his shadow.

This decision was Obama's to make. Let's be rational about this and not forget that there are plenty of other positions that will be available to Hillary in an Obama Administration, like Senate Majority Leader or a cabinet position, maybe even the Supreme Court.

Clinton's options are nearly limitless save for the Presidency, but overzealous supporters are actively tarnishing her image. Take some deep breaths and divorce yourself from the notion of being a Clinton supporter and join the rest of us as Democratic supporters for a better tomorrow.

I have decided that I am never going to vote for Hillary for anything.

From 1992-2000, we were treated to the spectacle of the enormously talented Bill with his inability to keep his zipper zipped. Paula Jones, blue dress, one rape after another. I had to sit there for 8 years, apologizing for this moron.

Never again.

Bill is currently involved with some other bimbo. He's a habitual adulterer, and is simply unable to control himself. That's why so many of us are totally opposed to Hillary - I do not want this serial screw-up in the White House, damaging the entire Democratic Party for years and years again.

If Hillary wants to be president, divorce Bill. That's the only way I will take her seriously.

Call it what you like . The republicans are angry that their target has been taken from them . They were geared up to combat Hilary , because contrary to belief , she has not been vetted and both she and her husband have much more in the closet than is being talked about openly . And as for those who will vote for McCain , well they were going to do so anyway .

Call it what you like . The republicans are angry that their target has been taken from them . They were geared up to combat Hilary , because contrary to belief , she has not been vetted and both she and her husband have much more in the closet than is being talked about openly . And as for those who will vote for McCain , well they were going to do so anyway .

"The republicans are angry that their target has been taken from them ."

Boy, you called that right. I think that the amount that they have already spent on oppo research on Hill-Bill must approach the National Debt, and require a storage area about the size of Yucca Mountain for full containment. And, now, it will all be wasted. No wonder they have gone off the deep end.

But, realistically, they had an oppo research ad ready for any of the short list VP candidates - Bayd, Kaine, Clinton, whoever. Whatever Obama did, they would say he could have done better.

Kristol's special. Concern trolls don't usually make the kind of money he does.

Dale

Bill and Hillary Clinton have not been vetted? You can't make this shit up. This might be the single stupidest comment ever made at Political Animal.

Senator McCain is old and can't remember how many houses he has. He has also flip-flopped on issues, but says he hasn't. Perhaps he just can't remember what his positions were before he became the party's nominee.

Have all the other Conservative Bush Republicans also become senile?

Feminism = equality!? What planet are you from? Feminism is female-centric, not equality based. The equality movement for women (that we used to call feminism) died in the 1920's after successfully winning equal rights under law (like the right to vote). Modern feminism is the antithesis of equality.

"How does it make sense to select such a poor vote-getter as Biden?"

We're not voting for Biden, we're voting for Obama. Did you vote for Cheney in 2000 and 2004 ?

How does it make sense to select such a poor vote-getter as Biden? -- Matthew R Marler, @20:36

He's more likely to accept being "*second* in command" than Hillary (egged on by the never-sated Willy Wanker) would have?

Biden isn't meant to be the centre of attention; Obama is. With Hillary on the ticket, the whole would have been less than the sum of its parts; this way it's not.

Pox on the lemon; orange was better.

I think this stuff is just plain not real. The idea of Hillary supporters going renegade against the party was a media myth created to slime Hillary as some kind of a racist candidate. Hillary supporters like me can complain and Monday-morning-quarterback all we want about the primaries and the VP selection, but at the end of the day everyone is going to fall in line for Obama since that's the decision that's been made. This idea that they're going to split the Democrats over this stuff is just wishful thinking on the Republicans' part. If any pro-Hillary protest happens on the convention floor, it's nothing more than a Republican dirty trick.

Where does Benen get the gall to write such bovine feces like "Republicans' aversion to promoting women into positions of political power"? Has he never heard of our current secretary of state, 3rd in line in the presidential succession? That is a first, by the way, and a Republican president did it. Oh well, democrats are never short on gall.

Ah, good point, redmanrt. Maybe we should amend it to say "Republicans' propensity for pretending that one appointment negates their solid history of aversion to promoting women into positions of political power."

Swan: If any pro-Hillary protest happens on the convention floor, it's nothing more than a Republican dirty trick.

Whoa. Those crafty Republicans have kidnapped Clinton delegates, stolen their credentials and will take their place at the convention? Where will their mad genius end?

"Where does Benen get the gall to write such bovine feces like "Republicans' aversion to promoting women into positions of political power"? Has he never heard of our current secretary of state, 3rd in line in the presidential succession? That is a first, by the way, and a Republican president did it. Oh well, democrats are never short on gall."

And Repukeliscum are never short on intelligence. Your stupid comment demonstrates, yet again, that the class of repukeliscum being minted today is the stupidest of many years.

Madeline Albright, you fucking moron, was the first woman Secretary of State. And, even more, she actually knew something. Rice is not only a female, but she is a single-person argument for restricting the position to males. She is really a chump, just like you.

And another point, you fucking moron shortstop. The Secretary of State is not in the line of succession. The Speaker of the House is 3rd in line.

Why are Repukeliscum so stupid today? One post, at least 5 errors. What a fucking moron.

Whoops. The fucking moron is redmanrt. Shortstop is not the fucking moron. My apologies for an inappropriate fucking moron call.

No, I'll take a half-moron call for tuning out redmanrt after "secretary of state" and not even reading and correcting the rest. Pretty sure redmanrt was doing the old "What do you mean we have a terrible record with blacks and women? Why, just look at Condi Rice, who makes up for our entire history with both!" thing, and I half-processed it as such. More coffee, less posting.

Ah, but there you go again thinking that a particular female politician represents all women in politics:

Rice is not only a female, but she is a single-person argument for restricting the position to males.

This is silly beyond belief, POed Lib. Would you say that Rice is a single-person argument for restricting the position to white people? Wait, don't answer; I'm afraid you'll say you would.

What I think is pretty plainly transparent is that the GOP really, really, really wanted Clinton to be on the ticket somewhere. They would love nothing more than to have such a juicy jihad opportunity. But, the Dems aren't playing along, and aren't giving the Reps what they want, so, in typical fashion, they're whining and crying like babies.

That's all this is.

I was going to hammer redmanrt for being an idiot and forgetting about Madeline Albright, the first female Secretary of State and ONLY competent female to hold that post, but I see those of you who get up earlier than I do already smacked him around, so carry on.

Barbara wrote: Maybe this is the first salvo in John McCain naming a female as VP? But who would that be? No one remotely serious has been mentioned."

First of all, let me appologize for commenting without reading the whole comment section.

Second, that also was my first reaction to reading this article.

But my second thought is that this is nothing more than gamemanship by the McC*nt campaign, trying to raise hopes and interest by a segment of the populace before they dash it and pick Mitt Romney.

With luck, this will backfire by reminding the MAJORITY of the American Populace that the closest the Republican'ts have ever come to nominating a woman for the top two positions was Elizabeth Dole. So yes, please remind American Women that they have never gotten anything from the Republicant's.

So it will be:

McCain/Romney 2008
A Polygamist...
... and a Mormon.

By the way, I was totally wrong about Obama's pick of a VP, so I'll probably be wrong about McC*nt's. But I do want to say that McC*nt's lead in Michigan is because Obama is not counter spending there (yet) because Obama wants McC*nt to pick Romney. (If I'm wrong about the spending I appologize, but I believe the polling does show McC*nt with a lead).

But I do want to say that McC*nt's lead in Michigan is because Obama is not counter spending there

Obama is leading in Michigan and has consistently done so, with the exception of one poll in May.

It seems as if Kristol's goal in life at Times is to flick the scabs off whatever wounds Democrats may be suffering of late. And then after preteding to engage in objective political analysis on McCain's behalf regarding a winning running mate, Kristol picks that uber-zionist Joe Lieberman. Now there's a surprise. In terms of catering to ones own self-interest, Kristol's pick ranks right up there with Cheney naming himself as Bush's VP.

Thanks to admins of www2.washingtonmonthly.com - you created a splendid site!
I was able made only one blog with the info about a medical preparations
I hope this it is suitable section for my message if there is no that simply remove it and forgive for disturbance
My first blog - [url=http://blog.360.yahoo.com/buyfioricet30]buy fioricet[/url]
sorry for errors - here is a obscure and I have very small keyboard