Its amazing to me that someone is writing an article about hillary being a republican in disguise (though both she AND barack are) while quoting right wing talking points.

The democrat rules state that 2025 delegates are needed to win the nomination. Barack does not have enough votes for the nomination. Hence Hillary is still fighting and actually winning.

Stop whining and stop repeating corporate media and obama talking points. There is no harm in hillary running and Obama needs the experience (as evidence from his small town guns comment).

The harm and division is really a product of elements of the obama camp who are rather angry and belligerent, who "hate hillary" and who are mostly affluent white males; Hmm.. maybe the change and hope obama supporters are not that full of hope and change. Maybe they're just afraid of women and really susceptible to corporate media, right wing, and obama campaign propaganda.

Yeah, FTR, why are you quoting such a conservative rag as The New York Times? Couldn't you find a source with a little more journalistic integrity

I assume that is sarcasm. The New York Times is a corporate whore. Noam Chomsky does a very good job of proving this in his book Manufacturing Consent.

"Hillary is a monster, hillary is a bitch, hillary is unlikable, hillary is the devil incarnate, Hillary is dirty, Hillary is just going too far, Hillary is entitled"

- These are all themes the right wing has reiterated again and again for a good 15 years now and notice the title of the article... "Hillary is an Abomination."

Would a man with the same voting record get this abuse. Oh wait Obama is a man with the same voting record (and one whose campaign is far from innocent but the media never picks that up) and he is lionized as the second coming of the new and improved liberal jesus.

How exactly is Obama a republican in disguise?

Every time I read the Times, I know I get the urge to support tax breaks to the rich, buy a Hummer, and get me a gun to protect me from them scary blacks.

You can stop with the gender persecution complex, because it's just patently false. It doesn't make a shit bit of difference to anyone what kind of plumbing she has. Anybody that would make a difference to wouldn't be voting Democratic for a myriad of other reasons.

Hillary is unlikeable, because she does have an enormous sense of entitlement. Her sense of entitlement is why she didn't bother to heed the warnings of the DNC about the Michigan and Florida primaries. She has assumed for several years that the nomination was hers for the taking, and that the primaries would become moot before the convention, which was to be her coronation.

The problem is, she doesn't have the support of the average Democratic voter out on the street. She's built her power base among the party elite and insiders in back rooms. She doesn't give a rat's ass about representing the people of the United States. When the Clintons left the White House in 2001, she didn't go back and run for a seat from Arkansas, or her home state of Illinois, she went to New York, to a district where she could win, and then head straight back to Washington. To put it simply, she's a carpet-bagger.

Her '35 years' of experience is a crock of shit too. Even if you count her eight years as First Lady, most of the remainder of that time was spent as a corporate lawyer representing firms such as Wal-Mart.

Obama, on the other hand, has actually been an elected representative longer than Clinton. Prior to his running for office, he was a full time community activist, not just a summer here and there in between college, like Clinton. Obama didn't seriously consider a run for the presidency, until he was absolutely begged to by other members of the party, he's answered a call to service rather than seeking out a path to power, in the finest traditions of this nation's leaders.

Sheesh, you go on about FTR regurgitating pre-fed Obama talking points, but the whole gender debate is the most idiotic non-issue that's been injected entirely by Clinton.

EDIT: Spelling and Grammar

You realize the New York Times endorsed Clinton in January, right?

She doesn't seem to really care about what effect it has for the party, if the margin is as important as the media says it is then most candidates would have dropped out by now and given their support to Obama (and saved a huge amount of money from not campaigning). But she either just doesn't care or has just gone on too far simply to give up, it just reeks of arrogance either way becuase your going to split the party and if you polarise just under half the voters against your rival whats going to happen at the actual election? will they stay with the same person you demonised? or vote another way?
I'm not surprised I personally think she only stayed with her husband after the affair becuase it was the ONLY way she would be able to run at all also in a democratic country there should'nt be a dynasty of Clintons and Bush's.

Yes, yes they would.

While I can't deny that sexism plays a role in how Hillary's been portrayed by both the right and the left, I can't believe anyone who thinks she's somehow been more demonized than any other prominent politician.

Obama's been slandered as a "stealth Muslim" sleeper agent, an America-hating radical, a homophobe, secretly anti-choice, the second coming of George W. Bush, a gun-banning elitist, "too black", "not black enough", the "imaginary hip black friend" of "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies". Plenty of pro-Clinton website forums are packed to the rafters with so-called Democrats heaping scorn and derision on Barack Obama.

John Kerry's conduct during Vietnam was mocked and slandered by the same goons who trip over themselves to remind everyone that John McCain's a "war hero".

When Bill Clinton was President, he was accused of rape, murder, treason and drug smuggling.

George W. Bush has been compared to Hitler and Satan.

Explain to me again how Hillary Clinton is somehow more of a victim of the "politics of personal destruction"?

The fact that Clinton said she would 'obliterate' Iran in answer to a hypothetical question about a hypothetical attack by Iran on Israel with Iran's hypothetical nuclear weapons should be reason enough not to vote for this opportunistic nut-job.

Oh and Reaper, you forgot to refute her argument that the fact she had traveled to 80+ countries in her time as First Lady is adequate preparation for her to lead the American foreign policy machinery as president. Former National Security Advisor, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, likened this argument to Mamie Eisenhower saying her time as First Lady would make her better prepared to be president than John F. Kennedy.

Mamie Eisenhower would have caught that bullet with her bare hands and thrown it right back at Lee Harvey Oswald.

How?

Experience.

Is it irony that alaric cites Chomsky, but has grammar skills of a elementary school-aged child?

No, it isn't.

Yet its okay for obama to say he would attack and possibly nuke packistan? Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski is an obama adviser and key author of the brillant fuckover russia policy.

There is no way in hell that the venon directed towards hillary clinton is a product of policy. No way. This is something else. IIs it the woman factor? Maybe. Its definitely a product of the corporate media, obama campaign, and right wing talking points which are being faithfully reproduced by obama's supporters

As for the new york times. It also supported the iraq war now didn't it. Its a corporate whore that endorses US foreign policy, a policy that is largely supported by democrats and republicans.

Is hillary also a corporate favorite? Absolutely. But that was not the point of my post. My point is that the divisions in the democratic party appear to be coming mainly from Obama's supporters and their very, very, very personal attacks of senator clinton. I'm not voting for either by the way or for McCain.

Now lets examine some obama supporter hypocrisy. Hillary should drop out because its mathematically impossible for her to get the nomination. Oh wait its also mathematically impossible (highly unlikely) for obama to get 2025 votes now. By your logic obama fans, Obama should drop out.

But Obama has the popular vote. Right we should go with the popular vote but hey not if it includes Michigan or Florida because those states didn't listen to the rules, the rules obama fans now want to throw away.

Obama has crossover support from republicans and that's why he did so well. Yet when hillary gets republican votes for hillary its evidence of that republicans consider her the weakest candidate.

etc., etc.,

Stick to the issues stop the personal attacks, let the process work its way out. Correct the process for the future if you don't like it. Trust the corporate media at your own peril. Its not on your side and i assure you of that CNN, Fox, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, will never offer positive coverage to a real progressive. That applies to hillary and obama.