Thank you to all who have read our posts, commented, emailed, and spread the truth.

We wish the outcome had been different, that the will of the people to have Hillary be the nominee had been respected, but, as we learned in 2000, American democracy can at times be quite illusory. Yet we have not been trampled into a state of depressive submission; instead we are emboldened. We look forward to 2012, when we will say hello again to the true victor of this year’s race, Hillary Clinton. As for Obama, the close of the primary season is really the beginning of a long goodbye, one that will end in November. Obama will be a blip in history, which is sad really, as he held such promise in our eyes only a few years ago. That’s the difference though, Obama promised, Hillary delivered.

Here’s to you Hillary we’ll see you soon…

This is an interesting video compilation of the sexist attacks against Hillary by the media, the public, and yes St. Obama himself, set to Hillary’s brave and groundbreaking 1995 UN speech on women’s rights.

Hillary Clinton recently held a conference call with blogger supporters; I recommend listening to it. Sincere brilliance. Click here.

An interesting comment posted after an article concerning Obama’s sexism….

Barbara D Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 4:44 PM

One has to wonder about how he chooses to interact with women in a PC world. From Maureen Dowd:

Hillary has clearly raised Obama’s consciousness about the importance of courting the ladies. Touring a manufacturing plant in Allentown, Pa., Tuesday, he was flirtatious, winking and grinning at the women working there, calling one “Sweetie,” telling another she was “beautiful,” and imitating his daughters’ dance moves by twirling around. Later, at a Scranton town hall, he went up to Denise Mercuri, a pharmacist from Dunmore wearing a Hillary button. “What do I need to do? Do you want me on my knees?” he charmed, before promising: “I’ll give you a kiss.”

I suppose he was trying to be charming, but it sounds immature, condescending and politically naive coming from the mouth of a presidential candidate. His behavior in Pennsylvania went beyond the “habit” of calling women “sweetie.” As a presidential candidate, he needs to come across as,well, presidential. (I know the standards have been lowered in the last 7 years by the current occupant of the White House, but we should demand more from those aspiring to be president.

To be honest, I would have thought Barack Obama would be right up Sean Penn’s alley. For what little it’s worth, turns out he’s not. He had this to say at Cannes;

Asked if he would be joining other Hollywood A-listers in pledging support for Obama, Penn gave him a less than ringing endorsement and warned that he has an awful lot to live up to.

”I don’t have a candidate I’m supporting and I’m certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring,” he said, but went on to accuse him of a “phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional” voting record.

”I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn’t become a greater man than he will ever be,” Penn said. “This is the most important election, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe ever.”

Although it’s probably too late…

Here’s the sweetie link in case you missed it. This is the seciond time he’s called a female reporter sweetie in the last few weeks.

And while we’re on a youtube trip, did you hear Obama’s joke about the 57 United States? Oh wait, it wasn’t a joke…

From Marie Cocco’s essay in the Washington Post;

As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it’s time to take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan “Bros before Hos.” The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won’t miss television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won’t miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a “big [expletive] whore” and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters — one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee’s official campaign Web site.

I won’t miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: “Obama did great in February, and that’s because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary’s doing much better ’cause it’s White Bitch Month, right?” Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

I won’t miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie “Fatal Attraction.” In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding stalker who terrorizes the man’s blissful suburban family. Message: Psychopathic home-wrecker, begone.

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a “she-devil” (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she’s “looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court” (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it’s mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like “a scolding mother, talking down to a child” (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is, the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: “White women are a problem, that’s — you know, we all live with that” (William Kristol of Fox News).

I won’t miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible “gender card.”

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?

There are many reasons Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for “change.” But for all Clinton’s political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

Marie Cocco is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Her e-mail address is mariecocco@washpost.com.

As I’ve been saying for over a year now, Obama is the GOP’s preferred nominee, why else would Rove be schooling him on how to beat Hillary?

Now it’s official…

Limbaugh says, “I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees,” Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. “I now urge the Democrat supereldegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama.”

In his recent post on Corrente...

Barring a stunning reversal of fortune, my party is heading into November with a candidate who thinks the GOP is “the party of ideas,” who badmouths socialized medicine, progressive partisans, liberals (and their Chablis-soaked limos), and who says he was “called to serve” by Christ himself.

As Obama’s former friend and mentor recently noted, “he says what he has to say as a politician.”

Sure, I understand that to overtake a more-popular and more-experienced party rival, it’s necessary and appropriate to destroy her and her husband’s reputation via completely fraudulent charges of racism. Sausage ain’t beanbag, as they say.

But was it necessary to piss away this “change year,” this once-in-several-decades opportunity to repudiate the Reagan Revolution, selling a mere façade of change and propagating — as shystee so succinctly put it — “the absolute fabrication that the problem with Washington is excessive partisanship”?   More here.