Stating it is probably time for Maria and Patty to find new jobs is not sexist. It is called THEY ARE OUT OF TOUCH, you know funding endless war and all that stuff.

It's been a slow news week. So slow that even War Guilt Spammer and Mean Insult Guy returned. Seems like a lot of people don't have anything nice to say.

i admit: it was sexist to say that the was state superdelegates are voting their vaginas. just as sexist as saying "men think with their dicks". which i seem to remember hearing from some women at some point in the past.

howEver, choosing clinton now defies logic, and contradicts the clearly expressed wishes of washington state voters.

@1: Feel free to say that. I'm referring to "stupid cow," etc. But to address your point: Please--Cantwell and Murray are hardly in danger of losing their jobs over this. (Murray voted against the war, you know.) Be upset if you like, but why bother with idle threats? Sims is in more danger than either Senator. Talk about out of touch.

speaking of Clinton's (irrational) talking points:

http://www.journalism.org/node/11266

poof!

I'm going to agree with "shush". Superdelegates who are not elected officials should neither be seen nor heard, and their private psychodrama over whom to endorse or whether to endorse or when to endorse is almost as exciting as that saga of the bloggers who used to be lovers.

And how will you feel when Obama loses? What excuses will you have then? It's not looking good even though the R's have fucked everything up, EVERYTHING, and still Obama trails McCain. That is not good. Not good at all.

speaking of Clinton's (irrational) talking points part 2:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/how_clear_is_clintons_crystal.html

looking at you Vince.

Oh, I'll feel fine if Obama loses. I'll happily blame people like you, @7. Obama's going to be the nominee, so shift gears, stat! Also, he's not trailing McCain right now.

@9 I knew you'd find someone to blame but yourself. I have and always will give my all to whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Until then I will question the thinking of those who have been wrong so many times in the past. The left of the left that uses about as much rational thought as John Hagee.

@10: Darling, why in the world would I blame myself? Both Clinton and Obama were/are good candidates and would've had similar chances in the general election. Now if I were shilling for Dennis Kucinich and somehow succeeded in getting him nominated (behold the power of Annie Wagner!), then, and only then, could you blame me. Stop throwing petty nonsense like a caged monkey throws poo. It's time to get behind the probable nominee, or at minimum stop insulting the intelligence of his supporters.

Fuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhck I want the supes to get behind Obama and end end end end end this fucking slow-bandaid-pull of a nomination process...

I will always love Hills, but as Cromwell said "YOU HAVE BEEN SAT TO LONG HERE FOR ANY GOOD YOU HAVE BEEN DOING. DEPART, I SAY, AND LET US HAVE DONE WITH YOU. IN THE NAME OF GOD, GO!."

@7 - Obama leads McCain by 6 points nationally.

According to realclearpolitics.com, Obama led McCain by twice as much as Hillary did, till just now. I think the constant drumbeat of "well there's nothing decided yet, a dark horse could still win the race.. PICK ME DAMMIT, PICK ME!!! YUO IDOITS [sobs] Do you WANT us to lose?!?" may be affecting the polls.

oh. my. god. Did I read Big Sven correctly? Has he really urged his candidate to capitulate?

Next stop, Armageddon.

@7 How quickly people forget how John Kerry was the only electable candidate in 2004 and we saw how well that turned out.

Clinton's ceiling is dangerously low. She will never appeal to a large number of voters who have long ago made up their mind, "anyone but Hillary".

Obama is now only a few delegates away from clinching the nomination, and his upside is huge. McCain is only benefiting from the ongoing confusion and animosity being generated by Clinton's stubbornness to bow out.

Super-delegates endorsing Clinton at this point in time should explain exactly what it is they expect to gain or come of it.

Aria@15- I switched to Obama after the "hard working voters, white voters" thing. Took the bumper sticker off my car and everything. At this point in the campaign she has embraced a message that I can't support.

No one can convince me that she *isn't* a great Senator, and a good Democrat to have on the national scene, but she needs to move on. She is no longer helping us for the fall campaign; she's hurting us. Former Clinton supporters should help this process by urging her in every public forum to concede, refocus on the Senate, and support Obama's campaign to defeat McCain in the fall.

Big Sven @17: I didn't know that you had switched. I really appreciate you taking a stand on the issue. I was so upset by that comment. I did not support Clinton before it, but it made me feel like she had totally thrown me under the bus.

What an ass hole.

@7 - Whether or not Obama will lose to McCain in the general (he won't) is irrelevant at this point. I've also heard Clinton's campaign parroting national polls that show she's (supposedly) stronger against McCain. Anyway, it's irrelevant because Obama already won the primary. He is the candidate. Move on.

Annie, superdelegates are dragging their feet because they want some sort of favor from the candidate they're supporting. That's how political endorsements work. Don't you ever watch The Wire?

Macoll states her reason for support Clinton:
"to get us out of this mess in Iraq" adding, "This war just makes me sick".

Her endorsement makes no sense. I guess Eileen is unaware that Clinton voted for the war?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/365172_delegate30.html

More good quotes:

Macoll on Hillary: "I think she has handled this whole campaign with style and grace.

HA HA HA

This woman is mental. She must be on her period (just kidding, Annie!).

I'm rooting for Clinton now.

Thanks, Papayas@18. It can sometimes feel weird around here to be an "ex-Clinton-supporting Obama supporter," but I'm totally happy I made the switch and have zero second thoughts.

Any buyer's remorse that I might have felt was blown away by her "1968" comment- as someone who likes Clinton, I can't understand how she could have made such a politically inappropriate comment. Even if what she meant was "it's not over until it's over," it was a colossal misfire. And fatally wounded her primary argument- good political judgment (Iraq War vote excepted). It was the first time I've ever felt embarrassed to have once been a Clinton supporter.

But whatever. Go Obama!

@20: Read my previous post. Some supers are surely playing hard-to-get for political favors (and no, I honestly don't have time to watch The Wire, though I adored Homicide: Life on the Streets), but Macoll and Clyburn had all but declared their preferences and it would've taken an act of God to change their minds. The only reason they were quote-unquote undeclared was so they could be identified as such to the media and then go ahead and make Clinton or Obama's talking points.

The talking-point that Clinton is winning against McCain is specious at best. Quoting a poll as fact is stupid, especially when it is well known that pollsters cannot contact people who only use cell phones and don't have land-lines.

At this point, Clinton is saying anything, no matter how implausible, to justify staying in the race. My opinion is not inherently misogynistic either, just pointing out the obvious.

I agree. Eileen Macoll's endorsement of Clinton is probably based on gender. If she is voting primarily in hopes of ending the Iraq war, it makes sense to vote for the person who had the judgement to not support the war.

Moreover, look at what else Macoll said when endorsing Clinton: "When we started this process a year ago, I did not think that would factor in for me, but it does. And I see this war being fueled by gallons of women's tears." I find it interesting that she said, "women's tears." Way to be promoting negative gender stereotypes...
Are women the only ones who are saddened or troubled by the Iraq war? Are women the only ones who are against the war in Iraq? Why is it that only women are troubled by the Iraq war? Geez... what a sexist.