So, because Mr. Herbert believes that Clinton's quoting exit polls and saying "There's a pattern emerging here" is a "grotesque insult to African-Americans" he apparently feels justified to use his column to insult Hillary AND Bill Clinton as much as he can by saying "So, class is not a Clinton forte." He then proceeds to pull out dirty laundry from the closing days of President Clinton's tenure to try to muddy up Hillary, as if Hillary signed off on the alleged "dirty" pardons. His self-righteous riff ends with "The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame."

I will tell you who should be ashamed of himself -- Mr. Herbert, for being willing to ignore the many statements of Senator Obama which were not only similar to Clinton's recent musings about exit polls, but were much more arrogant. Herbert either has a convenient short memory, or his biases are more than showing.

Either both Clinton and Obama are race-baiting or they both are not. They are either both racists or they both are not.  Make up your mind.  They have been entirely equal in their statements that can be construed as anti-black racism or anti-white prejudice. Obama, all along, has been able say things such as he said in August of 2007:

"I'm probably the only candidate who having won the nomination can actually redraw the political map," Obama told a Democratic voter skeptical that he could defeat a Republican candidate.

"I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I'm the nominee, goes up 30 percent around the country, minimum," Obama said.

"Young people's percentage of the vote goes up 25-30 percent. So we're in a position to put states in play that haven't been in play since LBJ."

"If we just got African-Americans in Mississippi to vote their percentage of the population, Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state," Obama said. He said Georgia would also turn Democratic and South Carolina would be in play.

What dumbfounds me is that analysts (apparently, such as Herbert) will read Obama's comments and say "Well, Obama didn't say 'Clinton can't turn out the black vote' now did he? He just said he could turn out more black and young voters than anyone else, if he is the nominee." Context is everything. When you say "I guarantee a certain turnout, if I am the nominee" you are saying that NO ONE ELSE CAN DO THAT. In other words, you are saying Clinton will have a negative effect on black voter turnout. In addition, when you talk about black voter turnout based on you being the nominee and you are a black person and you don't explain on what basis you believe that will take place, on its face, it is clearly a statement of racial preferences.

On top of that, please note the words "if I'm the nominee." Given the context, one could conclude that if Obama isn't the nominee, he WON'T work to increase black and young people turn out. Interesting, don't you think? Mr. Herbert?

Not once in this entire campaign has Clinton made such an equally arrogant and clearly divisive statement about women voters, even if it may be true or it is supported by the data. She has never made such a divisive claim. But, of course, Clinton gets no credit for that.

If I were to paraphrase Mr. Herbert's language about Clinton and apply it to Obama, it would go like this:

"I don't know if Senator Clinton can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that significantly fewer black people -- or young people -- will show up to vote for a white woman candidate in a presidential election is a slur against whites."

It is pretty clear that Herbert has either succumbed to his own "battle" fatigue, his own biases, his own short-memory, or the Clinton Rules, Obama Rules, or all of the above.

I, personally, have absolutely no problem or concern about so-called 'identity voting."  Everyone gets to vote how they damn well please.   If they want to vote on the basis of skin color or gender or club affiliation or whatever, it is their perfect right.  In this primary, since the voters are essentially the employers in this scenario, each voter gets to decide what kind of affirmative action they want to take.

What I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH is applying the "rules of engagement" unequally to the candidates.  I don't believe either one of them is racist or anti-white.  I believe they have a right to talk about "identity voting" and anything that is supported by the data.  You can't ding one of them unless you ding both of them, because they are both culpable in this campaign.

That's my beef, and I am sticking to it.  Mr. Herbert, YOU should be ashamed of your journalism, this time around.

What about the "will of the people" and the alleged "popular vote"?  The Times takes a very superficial approach to analyzing what is going on in the Democratic primary.

Generally, dear Times, democracy rests on the principle of "one-person, one-vote."   You know that, right?  The Democratic primaries don't even come close to that principle given the wide use of caucuses which, on their face, don't even come close to one-person, one-vote (all you have to do is compare caucus results to primary results in states that had both). In addition, penalizing Michigan and Florida voters due to their leaders' stupidity or for the manipulation of Republicans in the Florida legislature is incredibly anti-Democratic with a big "D."

The fact that the DNC has delayed in fixing the Michigan and Florida problem in a timely manner is not only the MAJOR reason the party is on its way to splitting up, it also deprived (and clearly was planned that way) Senator Clinton from any momentum her campaign may have accrued through a timely resolution of the MI/FL problem.

Given all that, there is no valid way to determine what constitutes the will of the people or to validly determine the "popular vote."  Any one with half a brain can see that.  Any argument otherwise ignores the facts.

The superdelegates should be released from all previous commitments (which they should have never made anyway -- what grandstanding and deprivation of voters' independent thinking! I call that voter abuse).  The superdelegates should have every right to vote however they feel since there is no valid way to determine what constitutes the "will of the people."

So, it ain't over.  Democracy deserves more respect than that!  You have confirmed my earlier decision, in spades, to cancel my subscription to the Times and keep it that way.  Grow up!

And it's too late baby, now it's too late
Though we really did try to make it
Something inside has died and I can't hide
And I just can't fake it, oh no no no no.

The DNC has clearly delayed solving the problem because solving the problem by the main principle of democracy (one-person, one-vote) would have meant validating the votes as they stand, giving all the uncommitteds to Senator Obama (a generous solution, by the way). That solution done in a timely fashion would have allowed Senator Clinton to benefit from the momentum that such a solution might have generated for her. Clearly, the DNC did not want that to happen.

Because the DNC has delayed the solution of the MI/FL problem in a way that clearly negatively impacted any benefit the Clinton campaign would have accrued if the solution was made in a timely manner, I am now NEVER REJOINING THE PARTY (unless the DNC goes through a huge reformation).  I will work hard along with any other like-minded individuals to create a third party.  I would like to call that party The New Democrats.  First tenet of The New Democrats -- single-day, nationwide primary (you know, democracy....).

At this point, it doesn't matter to me if eventually the DNC fixes the MI/FL problem in some manner, IT IS TOO LATE, BABY DEAN, WAY TOO LATE.

You have cheated Senator Clinton from the benefits she should have received from solving the MI/FL problem in a timely manner.  For that, I cannot forgive you.

And, just for the record, let me repeat myself.  This Democratic primary process, consisting of dubious caucus results and the Michigan and Florida disenfranchisement and the non-timely solution to that disenfranchisement, is a shambles.  The process is so tainted that it is impossible to come to a valid conclusion about the "will of the people."   I can't believe that there is anyone with full brainpower who would claim that it is possible to divine the will of the people in these circumstances.

Thus, the superdelegates should be released from all previous commitments and be clearly allowed to vote as they wish without regard to any alleged "popular vote totals."   Those superdelegates who made their votes known before the end of the primary voting process, quite frankly, insulted voters by doing so.

And, dammit, shame on all those African Americans who wish to try to manipulate superdelegates into believing that there are valid conclusions that can be drawn about the "will of the people" from the tainted chaos of this year's primary process. They give new meaning to the word "blackmail." (For the origins of the word "blackmail," go here or here.)

Footnotes: Check these links for more on the Michigan and Florida problem, and, oh,  the Donna Brazile problem.

• There is No Unity Without Florida and Michigan, Don-na posted May 7, 2008 by riverdaughter.
• Do You Believe in Magic? posted May 7, 2008, at riverdaughter.
• The Party's Over . . . at The Confluence.
• What is going on with the "party"? at Angry for a Reason.
  

"Obviously," Dean said, "this is an opportunity to put to rest not only the bloodletting of this year's Democratic primary campaign, but will also allow America to put the Bush administration where it belongs, behind bars.  I have called for a meeting of the superdelegates to discuss this very attractive option.  As you know, our superdelegates can decide anything they want to and are not beholden to the voters."

Dr. Rice gave a brief statement, but would not take any questions. She said "This has been a very difficult decision for me, but something I have been contemplating ever since that 'Mission Accomplished' shenanigan.  I mean, what a publicity hog that man is!  But, the final straw came when George cut my shoe budget in half.  That was unprecedented, and really, really unnecessary, considering how much we have been spending on the war in Iraq.  I told George it would hurt my negotiating power with some of our strongest former allies, like Italy, France and Spain, where they make my favorite shoes and other fashion accessories." << MORE >>

Obama's frequent use of the phrase "I married up" and, in the Pennsylvania concession speech, even noting that "I have repeatedly said upon first meeting the mayor that this guy is going somewhere and mainly like me, because he married up" has always felt like a backhanded compliment.  I thought maybe it was just me, so I decided to do an informal survey among friends to find out if the phrase had the same effect on other people.  My wife was aghast. "If I was Michelle, I would be really upset. It is so condescending." The same was true of 95% of the men and women I surveyed.  Aghast.

Along with calling a factory worker "sweetie" and other semi-conscious sexist remarks, this just reveals more about Obama that convinces me he has some maturing to get on with before we have another semi-adolescent in the White House.

Obama's use of the phrase "I married up" is a backhanded compliment and, as such, it is clearly condescending.  I think he thinks it is cute (his mannerisms at the time he made such statements supports that conclusion).  I think he thinks it is self-deprecating humor.  And, maybe it is.  But, dig a little deeper. << MORE >>

Which reminds me.  I think it was a bad week for all of us, what with the Lilly Ledbetter bill biting the dust in the Senate, thanks, in no small part to Senator McCain.  Hmmm.... would love THAT Hillary ad in a Hillary vs. John general election season.

Oh, and then there was Howard Dean being his usual demented self.  Will this man ever go back to just being a doctor and give up on torturing us with his "logic"?  At least as a doctor he would only be hurting one patient at a time... ugh, did I say that?   Does that mean I am very, verY, veRY, vERY, VERY angry?  Yep!

Sexism:

• Fatal Attraction posted April 28, 2008, by echidne at Echidne of the Snakes
• McCain, The Women's Libber, by Melissa McEwan, posted April 24, 2008, at Shakesville
• Hillary Sexism Watch: Part Eighty-Four at Shakesville
• Hillary Sexism Watch: Part Eighty-Three at Shakesville 
• Feminism 101: "Sexism is a Matter of Opinion", by Melissa McEwan, posted April 25, 2008, at Shakesville
• Lust in Translation at Broadsheet
• Help Us Write "The Gender Speech" by Marie Wilson, posted April 24, 2008, at Huffington Post

• McCain's Compassion Tour (with much about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act), by Gail Collins, posted April 26, 2008, at New York Times
• McCain for Equal Pay? Um, No
• McCain Opposes Equal Pay Bill in the Senate

Politics, Popular Vote and Superdelegates:

• The Court Fumbles on Voting Rights, editorial posted April 29, 2008, at New York Times
• Demography is King, by David Brooks, posted April 29, 2008, at New York Times
• Hillary Gets No Respect, by William Kristol, posted April 28, 2008, at New York Times
• Howard Dean: Obama or Clinton Must Drop out in June
• Superdelegate Stalemate Shows No Sign of Easing, posted April 26, 2008
• Disenfranchised Florida Voters to Confront DNC Leaders
• The Popular Vote & MI
• Fair is Fair, by Geoff Garin (guest editorial), posted April 25, 2008, at Washington Post
• More People Have Voted For Hillary Than Any Other Candidate
• Obama Disputes Clinton's Popular Vote Count
• Democrats Divided Over Gas Tax Break posted April 29, 2008, at New York Times

Just a couple of comments (that, by the way, the NY Times would not post for me in the comments section). Come on, voters ARE NOT TIRED OF "IT." Only you folks in the media are tired of "it" because YOU wish to move on to other subjects, I suppose, like the next big thing.  YOU wish this primary season was shorter, you wish, you wish, you wish . . .

Don't project your wishes on to me!  The Democrats have every right to fight it out and use whatever typical political tactics they wish.  The voters are NOT that stupid! We know how to analyze and determine what is best for us.

Hillary is no more MOSTLY responsible for any negativity in this campaign than the media is or than her opponent. To try to pin this primary season's negativity on Senator Clinton is ABSURD and a sign of your over-reaction and overstatement.

To use the term "Mrs. Clinton" at the beginning of the third paragraph and then to continue using terms like Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton throughout your editorial is smug beyond belief.

Yep, you nailed it for me.  My subscription to the NY Times stops today.  Good luck and good riddance!

Thank God this primary season has been extended into overtime.  Maybe we can really find out what Senator Obama is made of.  So far, he shows a petulance and an immaturity that could likely be cured by a few more years in the trenches.

• In Clinton vs. Obama, Age Is a Great Predictor at New York Times.

• Who Would Joe Sixpack Vote For? at The Nation.

• Chelsea Clinton and Lessons in Media (Mis) Management at Jezebel and Chelsea Gets the Hillary Treatment at StandsAlone.

• More or less "pure politics" at Howard Dean puts the Pressure on at The Democratic Daily; Take the Quiz: Who's Using the Republican Attack Play Book? at HillaryClinton.com; and The Small Tent Democrats at Tom Watson.

• Lots of discussions about inter-generational feminism at Yo Mamma -- Hillary Clinton as the battleground in the war between mothers and daughters at Slate; More Than a Mother-Daughter Debate at The Prospect; Throwing Clinton Under the Bus To Spite Mom at Mother Jones; and, Young feminists just want to "go wild and pole dance" at Feministing.com.

• Hillary sexism sinks to a new low at Voices in her Head at The New Republic. Blogger reaction can be found at Oh for the love of God from Feministe.us and at Bitchez is Cra-zee from Shakesville.

• Melissa McEwan's "trilogy" on sexism at Shakesville on April 16 and 17 at Feminism 101: Feminism and Humanism; Clinton the Woman vs. Clinton the Person; and Clinton, Criticism and Misogyny.