This blog has been written because of comments by folks who believe that they have been unfairly treated. Folks who feel that the behavior of posters and the candidates have been biased and down right rude. This type of anger has led to a divide in the Dem party. In some cases, I've read that it has led to folks leaving the Dem Party.

If there is an element of this blog that you feel is trashing someone? Please ask before you jump to conclusions. The last diary, I said, was intended as a positive diary. I quoted something I'd read on the blogs.
.
There were commenters who gave me the benefit of the doubt.

They are one of the reasons that I'm writing this diary entry.

So please be kind enough to ask.

The benefit of a clarification never hurt anyone.

___

I came here to find information about the candidates. I live in a RedState. I just have to roll down the window during the middle of "Rush" hour to get a drift of what folks are thinking on the Republican side. But finding out information and meeting Dems isn't as easy.

I came here to meet folks and learn about the issues.

Now a long time ago, I was once told by a lady lawyer and professor that:

           Reasonable people can and do disagree.

But there is a difference between spirited debate while trying to find answers and being full of snark, scoring points, and being a thug.  

Or as my son said:

"There's a difference between "snark with ears" and "snark with just mouth".

Unlike some folks, I'm not professing sainthood here. Far from it. I can snark just like the rest. I like a friend who challenges.

But the thing is, if it stops being a challenge and starts to become a fist fight? It's time to ask why.

There are people on myDD and people in general who've been holding fist fights and it has just made folks mad.

So mad that they'd rather sit this election out thank you very much. They seem to feel that they've been had by their own political party. The party they counted on to represent their concerns in the WhiteHouse. Now they feel betrayed.

Yelling at them or telling them in anger that you just don't need their support won't make it better. Neither will the insults. The slang word "Cougar" isn't a compliment and yes it is sexist.

Another quote?

"Reasonable people will differ, but pizzing in their cornflakes? It just makes them mad." Hannah Murphy

So will calling them old, out of touch, low information, RedNeck, racist, cougars... well you've heard it too.

This has been keenly felt amongst the supporters of the feminist movement. These men and woman have fought hard so that their mothers, daughters, sisters---women every where-- should not be discriminated against. They remember what it was like before. The long struggles. It hurts. Yes it hurts to be told that you are unwelcome in the Dem Party. Especially when the folks saying it are the young women who have profited from the older feminist's work. The older feminist has seen both sides of gender discrimination. When you have seen and fought against sexism or any discrimination for that matter, you know why it is important not to take it for granted.

I am a woman. It hurts. Now adays you can choose  your path be it work or stay at home. There are non discrimation laws that prevent an employer from keeping the qualified woman home if she'd rather not. I am alot older than the younger feminists. So I have seen the world before Title IX and the Civil Rights Act. I was no baby while my mom worked and tried to cobble together childcare. They called us "latch key kids" . No wait I was a "latch key kid" before they even had a name for them. It's a different world kiddies. Guess what though, there are plenty of folks who'd just love to go back to the not so good old days.

These women and men, who've seen the hurt of sexism, have worked diligently to do more than put cracks in that glass ceiling. They feel that by this time in history,  it is wrong that the glass ceiling should even exist. There have been so many strong and highly qualified women who've never even run for office or who've been passed over yet again. Then to be put down, yes I said it, put down by other women who daily profit from the feminist movement.  That's got folks mad too. Imagine you had worked so hard. Imagine if you've worked hard to change things and been successful at it. Imagine working so hart to give women a choice to stay home or not  and then be told by the people who have prospered from your work,

"You don't count."

And these elderstateswomen and men of the modern feminist movement  have indeed been told that very thing.

That's one of the reasons folks are not happy in Denver or in many other parts of the country this day. They have fought too hard and too long only to be told,

"You don't count."

It is to these women and men I say,

"Yes, You do."

_____

I'm my last diary, I said that I would be working to see that a woman is elected to the office of President. This isn't a single issue. As I said in that diary, women cared very much about health care, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, immigration, education, the economy, the environment...

I'm just making sure that I put this at the top of the list.

Not getting passed over when you are the most qualified person for the job.

To me it is beyond believe, that in this day and age, this issue comes up when deciding who will sit in the Oval Office.

There's more...

I have tried very hard to avoid arguing about the merits of the various presidential candidates. Now that the short list of Obama's VP choices has become quite visible, nearly every one looks to have significant downsides, for a multitude of reasons. Looking at the list tonight, it occurs to me that Clark will be the only one who will be looking relatively good by November.

There's more...

John Kerry announced his choice of John Edwards for VP on July 6, 2004, exactly 20 days prior to the first day of the 04 Democratic convention. If Barack Obama follows the same schedule, he will announce his choice on Tuesday, August 5. Certainly one suspects the announcement will come prior to the commencement of the Olympics on Friday, which means the likelihood is that the announcement will come some time in the next 5 days (just not on Thursday, Barack, OK?, I'll be on a plane.)

But who will it be? First let's look at the short lists. From The New York Times:

Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chuck Hagel
Tim Kaine
Sam Nunn
Ed Rendell
Bill Richardson
Kathleen Sebelius

The Wall St Journal strikes Hagel, Nunn, Rendell and Richardson from their list and adds:

Jack Reed
Chris Dodd

The latest buzz has been Tim Kaine, a prospect that has been just about universally panned throughout the blogosphere and one that has been picked up by the trading markets.

From Justin Wolfers:

"The vice-presidential shortlists are getting a lot shorter -- and, on the Democratic side, prediction-market traders are moving sharply towards a new favorite. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who rated only one-in-ten odds a week ago, is now given a one-in-three chance of winning the number two slot.

Even though Democratic operatives have floated a shortlist with seven possible picks (Senators Biden, Bayh, Dodd, Clinton and Reed, plus Governors Kaine and Sebelius), prediction markets suggest there are really only four serious candidates. Beyond Mr. Kaine, Mr. Bayh is the second favorite with a one-in-four chance, followed by Ms. Sebelius with a one-in-six chance, and Mr. Biden with a one-in-eight chance."

While the WSJ market gives "the field" -- in other words, anyone other than the top 4 -- only a 20% chance, I share Wolfers's skepticism about this CW top 4.

Even though I think the markets have the candidates in the right order, I would still be shorting the favorites, as it remains likely that someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat.

Sean at FiveThrtyEight concurs:

For my own gut sense, I have never been comfortable with the conventional wisdom surrounding Obama's VP pick. There's something nagging about it, and no hard numbers to support my feeling. Perhaps it's the "think different" approach to many aspects of the campaign - the next-level social networking, the unprecedented 50-state massive organizer approach, the generalized no-leak culture among decision-makers, etc. It strikes me that in multiple important key ways, the Obama campaign has made conscious departures from the conventional wisdom norm.

For me, my skepticism about the Kaine/Sebelius buzz is that I've never really bought into the "reinforcement" theory of VP choice. Some prominent bloggers have said, essentially, that Bill Clinton had it right when he chose another Southern young white dude because it reinforced his strength as opposed to shoring up his weaknesses. Barack Obama, the theory goes, needs to pick someone who reinforces his core message of change rather than worrying about using the VP pick to allay people's fears about his lack of national security experience. The problem with this is that Gore actually did fill a void in Clinton's resume; Gore had a ton of what Clinton lacked: Washington experience. I think the Obama campaign has calculated that he needs to do the same thing.

My gut tells me a couple of things. First of all, Barack is not going to pick someone who needs to be introduced to the country. He has enough of an uphill climb introducing himself to the nation, is he really going to pick another unknown quantity for the ticket? So that leaves us with a different list, which, let's say for argument, looks like this: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Sam Nunn.

Among these possible picks, some are known thanks to their extensive Washington, DC resumes (Clinton, Biden, Nunn, Dodd), some are not (Clark, Edwards, Richardson.) So, which list will Obama pick from? You'll recall that in the primary, Barack ran against Washington experience and turned what Hillary thought would be her top selling point into an albatross around her neck with one very effective line: "are we just going to keep sending the same people to Washington and expect a different result?" In other words, if you've spent a lot of time in DC then how can you expect to change it? He could and should be using the same line against McCain, but he's not. The other day I noticed him almost say it at one of his townhalls, but he caught himself. Why? My gut is that he's leaning toward picking a Washington insider for his VP. My guess is it's Biden.

So if I were a betting man -- actually I am, but I'm not betting on this -- I'd short the top 3, buy up some Biden and not count Clinton out just yet. I'm not holding out some real hope that she'll be picked, mind you, I'm just not convinced that the signs of her demise as a possible VP pick -- e.g. her speaking on Tuesday at the convention, the shuttering of VoteBoth -- are dispositive. But contrary to CW I'd put her as more likely than Kaine or Sebelius at this point but I really don't expect it to be any one of the three of them.

What's your gut telling you?

Update [2008-8-3 4:23:10 by Todd Beeton]:I'm realizing I should have included Evan Bayh on my Washington insider list but he strikes me as really not well known and, well, a really boring pick. I've also always thought the psychological benefit of simply putting a Hillary supporter on the ticket was overblown. But two strategists on CNN tonight are predicting Bayh.

There's more...