Please.  You may agree or disagree with his statement about Bill Clinton, but it's embarrassing that you actually believe this disqualifies him as a Democrat.  During the 90's, as Clinton maintained his popularity, the Democratic party withered, losing not only our decades long control of Congress, but getting decimated at the state and local levels.   It is this evisceration of the party that Howard Dean finally got us on the track of fixing.  Now, you can agree or disagree that Clinton was responsible for this, but your statement that someone who agrees with it (i.e. most Democratic activists) is not qualified to speak as a Democrat is a joke.

What are you hoping to accomplish by saying that?  Just curious...

True.  There's only been this segregation recently during primary season.  Most of the Obama supporters on mydd (like myself) stopped participating here because of the kinds of diaries that made the rec list, and the overall level of anti-Obama hatred.  We still lurk, I guess, which the reason KO's recent diaries made the rec list over the latest smear on Obama.

Like I said - I don't disagree.

hell - I've handed out donuts to Obama supporters at DK.  I'm not claiming I haven't crossed lines myself  - and I haven't always been the best 'self-policer'.

I would point out, however, that the race isn't over.

It's not that I don't want to start mending fences -- it's that I really do think we're still in  the "try to win" phase, not yet the 'fence mending' phase.

I don't know...  

In the end - I was pissed as all get out when Dean got basically quadruple teamed in 2004.   I actually voted for him in the 2004 IL Primary (which happened to then be the primary that locked up the nomination for Kerry -- and after Dean had suspended his campaign).

There were a lot of hard feelings.  A LOT.  

Hell - it's given me thick skin to the "cult attacks"... believe me - the level of "you're part of a cult" screamatics aren't even CLOSE to what I heard as a Deaniac.

Still - by the convention - I got over it.  I even volunteered for kerry in both WI and IA in 2004.

I have gotten criticized because I questioned someone's logic.  Often there is a very low threshold for people feeling trashed.

Well...

No malice intended, but I can't help you.

Have there been plenty of ugly, misogynistic comments at DK?  Sure - I've handed out donuts and called them out myself.

But here's the thing... I can no more answer for any of the ugly commenters there than you should be responsible for answering for some unsavory comments here... or - -say at taylormarsh.com.

I don't see what KO has to apologize for (per your original post).  At this point - the math doesn't add up for Clinton.  She needs big wins in OH and TX.  Increasingly, those big wins are looking unlikely.

I'm just not getting exactly what you want.  

Apologies for comments neither I nor KO made?

There is a basic irrational premise here that you just need to let go of. It is the idea that every idiot with an internet connection is entitled to speak on behalf of a community -- any community. The number of people who think this sort of thing is an enjoyable or necessary way to spend their time is a tiny, tiny, tiny part of either candidates supporter. Those who become abusive are a tiny fraction of that.

In five minutes on MyDD, you can find attacks on Obama that are patronizing, racist, foul-mouthed, irrational and arrogant. But you don't hold yourself responsible for that. You don't feel it reflects on you.

You can't judge an another community by its worst members while judging your own by another standard. That's how the right decided we were at war with a billion Muslims. Now, both the Obama netroots and the Clinton netroots have their "terrorists." I will apologize for the Clinton terrorists; you can apologize for the Obama terrorists. It makes just as much sense as the other way around.

ChristineP, I suspect I'm of an age with you and I'm female.  I have to agree with Zonk and EMTP democrat about the tit for tat on supporters of both candidates having posted vile stuff.

I will say that on dkos, it is a minority of Obama supporters that go over the line and they are generally troll-rated/HR'ed by other Obama supporters.  I certainly have handed out more HR's in the last 3 months than I have since I joined in 2004.  Enough said on that point.

When I watch Obama and Hillary in the debates; when I watch them campaigning with their respective constituencies, I see 2 terrific Democratic candidates.  For reasons that I'm not going to spend time itemizing here, I've decided that Obama is the better candidate but were Hillary to win the nomination, I'd happily vote for her.

I'm not saying that you're one of them but I do think that there are Hillary supporters who really expected her to be handed the nomination because she was female and she would be our first woman president or at least, they really hoped for that.  I think that reasoning is fallacious and a very poor reason to vote for someone for president.  It's not about gender.  It's about qualifications.  I have seen heated discussions over that very point which have been called chauvinistic, misogynistic, and sexist and they are NOT.  I think that card is played a little too quickly sometimes.

I've struggled with all the accusations of misogyny, chauvinist behavior and cult-member koolaid-drinking appellations I've had to listen to from non-Obama supporters.  

And before you accuse me of not understanding, I'm a 50-something woman who had to deal with lots of real sexual harassment in the workplace in the 70's and 80's. I understand the subtle and not-so-subtle points of sexism and how it plays out in our culture just fine.

I have a real problem with the accusations being thrown around as freely as they are.  I won't deny that there has been a few who have been horribly out of line but tarring a whole blogging community and a whole group of a candidate's supporters because of a few, is wrong.

There are a lot of women over 50 who don't agree with you so saying that you have a group of friends who do, really doesn't buy much.  

Let's stick to comparing qualifications and legislative records and stay away from the name-calling.

Well, at least you openly admit you're unhinged by hatred, unlike so many of your fellows, who hide behind wild charges of sexism.