OK.  All day, canadian gal had a diary up about a letter that Don Fowler and Alice Germond sent to intransigent Hillary supporters admonishing them to get behind Obama.  It was candian gal's contention that the letter was ineffective.  A long debate on the subject ensued.

Here's canadian gal's diary:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/23/1493 4/0576

And here's the letter:

There are a lot of people on Mydd who have been trying to argue that the sexism in this primary season was no worse than the racism, that Hillary Clinton's problems were solely of her own making.

Yet, Howard Dean was asked about this very issue on ABC's This week and here's what he had to say:

There has been an enormous amount of sexism in this campaign on the part of the media, including the mainstream media.  We'll leave present company excepted, because I think that's true.  But there have been major networks that have featured numerous outrageous comments that if the words were reversed and they were about race, the people would have been fired.

   So that's a big issue.  And there are a lot of women in this country who -- there's two issues here.  One is one candidate is ahead and one is not.  That happens all the time in primaries, and you get over that.  What you don't get over is deep wounds that have been inflicted on somebody because they happen to be a woman running for president of the United States.

Here's the link: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt on/2008/06/howard-dean-on.html

In our earnest desire to move own, unite the Party and win in November, some think that we can just sweep the sexism of this campaign under the rug.  But its a festering wound.  Even at sites where the Admins have come down decisively in supporting Hillary Clinton's call to support Barack Obama, readers are in rebellion.

Engaging in denial isn't going to work.  Too many women know in their hearts that if any sexist remark made this year had been replaced by a racist remark the effect would have been nuclear.  News outlets would have been google bombed, diarists excoriated and banned.

Yet much of the sexism went unchallenged and still does.  Keith Olbermann's recent attack on Katie Couric is just the most recent example.  The women finally says something of substance and she gets slammed as the "worst person in the world."

Denial isn't going to work.  If Howard Dean can admit it, then so should everyone on Mydd.  We need to take off the bandage and start draining the wound.  Many mea culpas need to be spoke.

Like Sen. Obama, I do not put my hand on my heart during the national anthem and I do not pledge allegiance to our flag.  However, if a President Obama is really going to change Washington, he needs to be able to explain why.

Much has been made of the unfairness of the Nash-McCabe question last Tuesday as to whether Sen. Obama believes in the American flag.  This question may have been loaded, but it was also a teaching moment.  A moment in which Sen. Obama had a chance to prove whether or not he has the capacity to change our country's dialogue.

It's a moment in which we begin talking about our extraordinary accomplishments as a civilization.  For, the contributions of the United States of America are unparalleled in human history.  When I hear the "Star Spangled Banner" or see the stars and stripes, I feel a rush of emotion the intensity of which I find somewhat embarrassing.  For me, ultimately, these emotions are driven in my pride in our national good works.  

My daugher and I were in the Barnes and Noble bookstore yesterday searching for a gift.  We passed by the section labled "Current Events."  On the display, top shelf eye level, where five books in the following order:

A.  The American Evita (cover with half of HRC's face)
B.  The Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit
C.  Barack Obama: An American Story
D.  The Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit
E.  The American Evita

If you want to check out the Voodoo Kit, here's the link:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Hil lary-Clinton-Voodoo-Kit/Turk-Regan/e/978 0762429653/?itm=11

While the entrenched media try to belittle Alegre's strike, calling us "silly," telling us we don't even know we're on a "boycott" instead of a "strike"; reporters generally are starting to rebel.

Catherine Crier over at Huffington Post: News Room Revolt!

"Anchors have abdicated their role as educated inquisitors; some because, simply, they are unqualified or unprepared, others because they would rather cater to their guests or the corporate bottom line than to the mission to bring truth to the airwaves. And yes, there is objective truth, or at least legitimate facts from which people may divine their own conclusions."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine- crier/newsrooms-revolt_b_92884.html

And then there's Brian Kilmeade at Fox walking off the set in the face of two straight hours of Obama bashing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21 /mayhem-at-fox-news-ancho_n_92743.html

Alegre's strike isn't just about Clinton-bashing and it isn't just about sexism, its about the creeping intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the news and opinion dissemination apparatus in this country.

I've stayed away from diaries about race generally and Rev. Wright specifically.  I don't like being called a racist and I don't like hearing people I otherwise agree with skating a little too close to the "race" line. Furthermore, there is more truth to some of Rev. Wrights sermons than many Americans want to hear.  I also admired and agreed with much of Barack Obama's speech on Wednesday.  I particularly liked the line about competing dreams.

I have also been sympathetic with the view that Rev. Wright is just preaching within the tradition of black liberation theology.  The problem is that he lost me in the sermon he gave on Sunday January 13.  Here Rev. Wright veered far away from the Bible and attacked Hillary Clinton as rich and white and privileged.  He also attacked Bill Clinton for "riding dirty" on African Americans.

Maybe, Rev. Wright just got a little too excited.  But ...  

The problem with caucuses has been well discussed here.  Its easy to argue qualitatively that the caucus format depresses voter turnout.  In a recent diary, thomasphoolery did a nice job documenting the rather dramatic effect that the caucus format has on turnout.  According to his calculations, caucus turnout was only about 1/17th as high as primary turnout based on the 2004 primary season.

The Texas 2-step allows us the quantify the effect of the caucus format on voter preferences, as well.  Yesterday, Texas held both a primary and a caucus.  For the two events, the candidates, the issues, the date, the weather, etc. were identical.  The only variation was in the format.  Any difference in the voter preferences in the two events is attributable entirely to the difference in formats.

So what's the result?

The Texas date with destiny on March 4 provides a unique  scientifically robust opportunity to understand the inherent differences between caucuses and primaries.  Here's how.

We are all keenly aware of the procedural differences between caucuses and primaries.  We know as an empirical matter that turnout in caucuses is far below turnout in primaries.  A recent diary entitled "The Problem with Caucuses" does a great job detailing exactly how much lower caucus turnout is.

However, there are also allegations that caucuses disadvantage the elderly who may be less mobile, mothers with young children who don't generally get out a night, blue collar workers who have a fixed work schedule, etc.  Caucuses favor students, white collar workers and men who tend to have more flexibility.