1: Clinton as “liar” and “race-baiter.” He’s clearly the former. Perhaps no worse than other politicians, perhaps not. All politicians have to lie to one degree or another. Bill Clinton was something of a master at it. (That he lied in order to hide the manner in which he sexually harassed women is one of the great ironies of feminist support for Clinton and his presidency.) As for race-baiting, I think that depends on how we interpret his comments during the South Carolina primary. I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a race-baiter for it, but I do think there’s been a pattern of trying to position Obama as the “black candidate” in order to scare white voters. Whether that’s race-baiting or not is a matter of semantics to me.

What’s funnier to me is Historiann’s reaction. How DARE Ari attack a two-term Democratic president! As if the guy should be a saint among Democrats simply because he won votes. That’s the kind of party loyalty that has been destroying politics in this country for decades. It’s also straight out of George W. Bush’s worldview. Loyalty above all else.

2. Obama and the PGN. I did respond to this, but apparently my response was insufficient. Obama has been much more outspoken about gay issues during this campaign than Clinton has, incorporating them into speeches for mainstream audiences. Clinton keeps the gay community on her side by submitting to questions for a paper read by a gay audience. Wake me when she defends the rights of gays, when she even uses the word, unprompted, in a speech to a mainstream audience. As for why Obama declined to be interviewed, I don’t know. It doesn’t seem terribly important to me. What would being interviewed by the PGN demonstrate? Maybe you are right: maybe it means that he’s a homophobe or someone who hates gays or doesn’t want to be associated with them. If so, he has a funny way of going about it, by bringing them up in his speeches so often. Obama also didn’t show up at the Black State of the Union last month. Maybe that means he hates black people.

3. Blogging etiquette. It’s your blog, you allow for comments. If you don’t want people to express their opinions, then don’t allow for comments.

I don’t go on other people’s blogs, pick fights, and then call names when people disagree. It’s just not my style. I’m not really sure what happened here yesterday, except that once again, the fact that people support Clinton for good, progressive reasons seems to really irritate some people. None of the Obama supporters here have even addressed let alone defended their candidate’s decision to blow off the Philadelphia Gay News, but it’s somehow my personal responsibility to answer for everything Clinton says or does. I happen to think that blowing off an important constituency is just bad politics, given the loyalty gays have shown to the Democratic party. And, I think it was an encouraging sign that under a Clinton administration, the LGBTQ community might actually win some (if not all) of the legal reforms they advocate.

I will continue to call out unfair media frames and political attacks when they’re used against both candidates, but as you know, there are just so many deployed against Clinton that I can hardly keep up! And Nicole, you’re entirely right: I don’t support women candidates whose policies I don’t support.

I agree that thread is one for the for the books, illustrating the typical arguments used by some OBama internet supporters.
I thought Ari’s 3;39 PM was mind numbing, jaw dropping stupid:

“Historiann, now I’m akin to Newt Gingrich? For saying that Bill Clinton is a liar and a race-baiter? Wow. But let’s make sure that we don’t engage in any circular firing squads. Because that would be icky.”

To me, it just captures the arrogance and stupidity of some Obama supporters. What universe do they inhabit? How is one suppose to respond rationally to that type of argument?

I also thought these 2 statements from his 4:10 PM were just too rich for words.

“But I also think your style of argumentation is deeply unfair and often nasty. Most of all, though, it’s just not my cup of tea.”

I think his comments qualify as projection, no?

Anyways, I thought your post and comments were outstanding but you are preaching to the choir since I am a Clintonista to the end. (I also thought Roxie’s were pretty good as well.)

I don’t think that Historiann’s political commitment to Sen. Clinton has anything to do with gender. I think, like many women, she is very disturbed by the fact that because of Sen. Clinton’s gender, she is being attacked by both parties, by the media and by mainstream Americans. So while she speaks of gender and Sen. Clinton regularly, it doesn’t equate to her liking Clinton more because they share the same gender. If I remember correctly, Historiann was an Edwards gal before he was out of the race.
I also speculate that if a highly conservative woman ran, Historiann wouldn’t support her politically but would speak as passionately about the gender discrimination said candidate would likely face.

I understand where you are coming from, but you have to understand that, from my perspective, your one sentence on supporting Clinton because of her better policies has been countered by numerous posts defining the race, and your support of Clinton, in explicitly gendered ways. That Senator Clinton’s gender is a major bonus for you as a voter remains my impression, even as I admit that it may be wrong. At any rate, it seems clear to me that you think her gender is a major disadvantage in this race (something with which I don’t entirely agree, although I would in many races, but when a white woman is going against a man of mixed race, it’s hard to tell what becomes a disadvantage and what does not).

I’m with Ari that hashing out these disagreements on the Internet is a basically healthy activity. Politics are supposed to be heated, and as this primary season has shown, simply because two different people support candidates from the same party does not mean that there is some obligation to come together at the end “in the interests of the party.” As I’ve said many times, I owe the Democratic Party nothing whatsoever.

As for my support of Obama being largely anti-Clinton, I happily agree. In my posts I think I’ve laid out rational reasons for not trusting her as a political candidate, reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with her gender, but rather with the specific positions she has taken over the years and the manner in which she has conducted her current campaign. If these reasons are not good enough for disliking her as a politician, then I guess there is no way to dislike Hillary Clinton without being labeled a misogynist.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

But, you and David have proved the point of my post quite nicely. Some Obama supporters just can’t get past your hatred and loathing of the vile Hillary Clinton. This whole comment thread has become another one where Obama supporters sling insults like “liar” and “race-baiter,” and make outrageous demands of Clinton supporters to defend this or that on Clinton’s behalf. So much for bringing the party together, boys!

For those of you interested in reading someone who’s followed the demonization of the Clintons since the late 1990s, please go read Bob Somerby’s dailyhowler.com. It’s a rich catalogue of the smears and insults hurled at the Clintons and anyone associated with the Clintons (like Al Gore.) He’s really right, I think: there are no rules when it comes to the Clintons. Anyone can hurl any insult, or make any outrageous claim they want to, regardless of the facts, fairness, or basic human decency.

Anyway, I saw Historiann’s Gingrich slur this morning and then took a few hours to mull over a reply because I felt so lousy about, again, being called vile names, the sorts of names I wouldn’t hurl at an enemy in anger. I then read Roxie’s comment upon my return. Which leads me to, I won’t be commenting here anymore.

Historiann, I’m a huge admirer of your work and your blog. I finished your book about a week ago, and it’s great. I think you’re smart, funny, and hugely talented. I admire your civic engagement and your willingness to put your ideas out there for all to see. I expect that you’re a great teacher and, I’m guessing, a better friend. But I also think your style of argumentation is deeply unfair and often nasty. Most of all, though, it’s just not my cup of tea. That said, I depart with no bad feelings — and not the slightest illusion that I’ll be missed in any way — and hope that I leave none behind me. I wish you and your commentariat all the best.

Thread is running a bit hot for its own good, perhaps, but I think Historiann is getting the best of it–which is not unrelated I’m sure to the fact that I support the same candidate. As to the candidates “agree[ing] that the votes in [certain primaries] would not count,” by what authority could the candidates–individually or collectively–do that? There were lots of hot Democrats in December of 2000 who explicitly stated that it was out of Al Gore’s hands to give in on the question of the Florida recount; that the rights of the people there were paramount and autonomous from party strategics. As Historiann noted many posts back, Michigan is a more complicated case in that not all names were on the ballot. But I’d suggest that Florida’s voice was peculiarly credible. Voters made their choices in full cognizance of the positions of the candidates (which had been visibly broadcast nationally for almost the entire month of January) but well beyond the range of the close-in bombastics that can artificially push and pull tracking numbers over the short term.

I’d also just add to the list of prominent African American public officials supporting Senator Clinton David Patterson, the new governor of New York. He conceded fairly recently that he had not even heard of Barack Obama when he began working closely with his state’s junior senator, and on the basis of that relationship decided to support her presidential ambitions. He also didn’t think fit to change his position just because the train was supposedly leaving the station. It seems doubtful that he feared being subjected to a “red-faced, finger-wagging tirade” from Bill Clinton, one of the more fascinating emerging journalistic tropes from this campaign season.