Oooh, nuance!

Remember my Hillary-as-devil picture from a couple of days ago? I must have been reading Samantha Power's mind.

"In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win," Power is quoted as saying. "She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything."

Power issued a statement Friday in which she acknowledged the comments but said she "deeply regretted them."

"It is wrong for anyone to pursue this campaign in such negative and personal terms," she said in the statement. "I apologize to Senator Clinton and to Senator Obama, who has made very clear that these kinds of expressions should have no place in American politics."

[I am stopping here to guffaw loudly and snarkily at the thought of Obama, Mr. "Hillary Is a Racist," making it clear that negative campaigning is bad bad bad.]

Obama's spokesman Bill Burton said in an e-mail: "Senator Obama decries such characterizations which have no place in this campaign."

[Well, at least he "decried" it. Snicker.]

Though Power immediately attempted to withdraw the remark, the newspaper insisted she had agreed in advance that her interview — part of a book tour — would be conducted on the record.

"You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'," Power is quoted as telling the newspaper. "But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

So let me see now. Hillary is now a monster. Of course, she also makes you want to vomit when you look at her. Sure! Looking at a racist monster will do that to you. And then of course, she has to lie - unattractively - to gullible, dumb-ass poor people in order to get votes. Hey, when you're a racist monster, lying is just another facet of your general horribleness!

From the very beginning, Obama has been trumpeting his moral superiority to Hillary Clinton and the other candidates who voted for the AUMF. He has done this on the basis of one speech in 2002 that was given in a very liberal district in Illinois, where he would have been taking a risk supporting the Iraq War.

When he became a Senator, he voted exactly the same way as Hillary, and admitted that he might have voted for the AUMF had he been in the Senate at the time. Never mind, though, he has superior judgement and morality because he gave a speech in 2002. Never mind what he did after that, when he was in a position to act on his supposed beliefs. Don't compare him to Russ Feingold, who has consistently voted against funding for the Iraq War and who also voted against the AUMF. These are not the droids you're looking for.

Obama's totally NOT cult supporters have swallowed this line of BS hook, line and sinker. As a result, like their candidate, they have been going around with an air of unbearable smugness and arrogance. I for one have been completely turned off by them, and the way they jump on every statement and action of Hillary's as if it were the WORST THING EVER, while acting as if their candidate, because of a speech in 2002, could do no wrong.

I ask again. Who went negative first in this campaign? Who is practicing the politics of personal destruction? Who has been dividing the party and dissing its most reliable members?

Let me tell you something, Samantha Power. I am not poor, not that there would be anything wrong with that if I were. I am a liberal New Yorker who makes a good living. I am the fucking base of this fucking party too. And I am really, really sick of having my chosen candidate demonized by you.

I know Hillary can forgive a lot - after all, she was the one to float the first trial "Clobama" balloon - but boy, she must be a freaking saint if she can still consider teaming up with Obama after Ms. Power's comments.

Or, you know, maybe she's just a politician who wants to win the Presidency, and so is Obama. Can we finally, finally admit that both candidates are imperfect, ambitious, and will do just about anything for the job? (Heaven knows why, you couldn't pay me enough.) And that these characteristics do NOT make them unsuitable for the job, but in fact, make them more likely to succeed in it? And that either one would make a far, far better president than McCaca, Giant Green Lizard forbid?

Or is that just too "monstrous" for the Obamans to realize?

ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease let this be true.

NEW YORK (CBS) ― Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton hinted at the possibility of a democratic "dream ticket" with Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking on the Early Show on CBS, Clinton said "that may be where this is headed, but we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket." Clinton said the race between her and Obama remains "incredibly close," with just "smidgens of difference" between them.

With Clinton's wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island last night, I think her argument that she can win big states and swing states is pretty persuasive. Of course, Obama's charisma and his ability to bring new voters and fresh enthusiasim to the party should not be underestimated either. And I don't think anyone wants the superdelegates to decide this thing for either candidate.

Will the Democratic Party do the smart thing for once? Will our strong, persuasive, intelligent candidates get together and become one unstoppable force - dubbed by the fabulous Res Ipsa Loquitur as "Clobama"?

Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease....

Here's what the Obamans say:

• Declaring the "first Black President" (and his wife by extension) racist - not divisive.


• Copying the "Harry and Louise" flyer from the anti-Hillarycare days to lie about Hillary's health care plan - not divisive.


• Based on the evidence of right-wing shill Matt Drudge's anonymous sourcing, accusing Hillary of disseminating a photo of him in a turban - not divisive.


• Publicly saying he's not sure his voters would vote for Hillary - not divisive.


• Stating repeatedly that he'd put Republics in his Cabinet - not divisive.


• Claiming that it's Bill Clinton's fault that the Democrats lost Congressional and gubernatorial seats in 1994, conveniently ignoring that 1994 was the year of the Gingrich Revolution - not divisive.


• Everything Hillary does - divisive. And of course, horrific, inexcusable, slimy, and Republican-lite.

Look, I'm not saying Hillary is perfect; far from it. She has indeed gone very negative lately. But a veritable truckload of slime has been pouring from the Obama campaign from the very beginning, and it's pretty much destroyed the Clintons' reputations. I find it very hard to forgive Senator Obama for that, since Bill was our first really successful and popular Democratic president since FDR. Now who do we have to be proud of as a party? And do we really hate ourselves that much, and are we such big fucking babies, that if our preferred candidate does not win the nomination we just won't vote? Do we really not get that McCaca would be worse than the Worst President Evah?

I really still wish for a combined candidacy, because I think that would be the biggest landslide we've seen in a long time. In fact, I'd like to see some polling on that! But I also think that it would be uniting for the Democratic Party to see these two bitter opponents put aside their differences for the good of the country and for the party.

Perhaps a deal will be struck tonight. (And people say Hillary supporters have no optimism!)

Reading comments on the Intertubes about how Hillary is hoping to destroy the Democratic Party by staying in the race until the convention, or how she is hoping McCain wins so that she can run again in 2012...I realized that these people will literally believe anything about Senator Clinton.

I mean, it simply could not be that she wants to win, and that she still has a chance, especially if the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated.

Unpossible.

I must be blinded by Hillary's Devil Powers. Where do I get my special glasses that make me see the candidates like this?

On second thought, no thanks. I'd rather look at this.

Ah, all better now.

Racism is a fact in America. It's been around for centuries, and it's not going away any time soon. While it is wonderful and amazing that a man of African descent may become the next President, and that would be a huge step in the right direction, I think we are all aware that we still have a long way to go before we achieve anything approaching equality for people of color in our society.

But what about the hatred that dare not speak its name? What about misogyny?

Via Atrios, here is a brief but excellent commentary about a horrific op-ed from the Washington Post by a woman named Charlotte Allen. The original title of the piece was "Why are Women So Dumb?" Forgive me if I don't find that very amusing, and forgive me if it makes me want to send Hillary Clinton my entire savings account.

See, if Hillary were not a woman, I'd still choose her over Barack Obama. But seeing the brutal misogyny that has been coming out in the press since she began her run only makes me support her even more strongly. The atrocities have been well-documented at Media Matters, so I won't even bother to list them. But my favorite had to be when Chris Matthews went on a rant about how Hillary only became the Senator from New York because her husband cheated on her.

I know I'm only 40 and make a good living, and thus should be drooling over Barack, apparently. But despite the "generation gap," I just identify so strongly with Hillary and what she faces every day. I have been treated with condescension and dismissal countless times in my professional and personal life simply because I've got a double X chromosome. As Senator Obama said,

"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

FYI, Barack, Hillary is 60. She doesn't menstruate any more, but thanks for playing.

Am I really dumber or more emotional because I'm a woman? Is Hillary? Why in the world do we still have to ask and answer these questions?

It's because misogyny is still widely accepted and promoted in our media, and in large part, because it's a much more hidden hatred than racism. Women were never slaves in this country - at least, not in a societally institutionalized sense.

In fact, misogyny and sexism are so hidden and accepted that a lot of younger women don't even see them. Even though Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency may not be successful, she can certainly be proud of the fact that she has uncovered this ugly boil on America's backside and given it a good spanking.

Thank you for that and for so much more, Hillary. Perhaps the next time a woman runs for President, she will not have to suffer quite as much of the hatred that dare not speak its name.

but worth it.

We're home.

More tomorrow as I rediscover the world outside our new apartment.