Democrats as victims?

No --

It's the Lifetime Movie Syndrome -- Dems want to be the "victim" where everyone feels sorry for them and they "heal" and all the other feminized stuff. This Lifetime Movie Syndrome and it's associated victim-as-desired status means most men won't vote Dems.

Women have captured the Dem Party rather substantially, and it's telling how the Peace Movement is almost entirely middle aged white women way out of the mainstream while young white male soldiers in the wars mostly support them (Iraq and Afghanistan). While the Peace Movement demands withdrawal and surrender in both Wars (Maxine Waters just re-issued that demand)

Most male voters (who are not rich and powerful) know they will lose: political power/influence, policies that benefit them, etc. in the politics of Oprah and Lifetime and the View.

I think that while the rhetoric of supression is calculated, the emotion behind it, both in speaker and listener is very, very real; otherwise the preposterousness of these claims would be unignorable.

The TNR/ Scott Thomas fantasia has been revealing and instructive in this regard. Reading the left, liberal, and even moderate magazine, group, and personal blogs is a fascinating exhibition of bewildered, furious people who have found themselves in an incomprehensible world.

The kid lied to a credulous audience, telling them what they wanted to hear, getting a big career jump until he got caught. It happens all the time. Instead of being sheepish and then shrugging it off, however, the reaction is bizarre, coming down simply to it doesn't matter if SC lied and made it up, it's true anyway. It has to be true, because that's what they want to be true.

The candidates described here seem that way too. They're not getting everything they want, so somebody must be stopping them, right? There's no other explanation--there can't be.

It's not that they are completely wrong and that their opponents are totally right, but that for the first time in many decades, these opponents can mount a credible popular defense and promulgate their own positions. This is a circumstance unknown in the adult lifetime of any American under the age of 65, at least.

This is nothing new for Hillary. She played that card when she was running against Rick Lazio. She claimed he was attacking poor little her and she all but squeezed out a tear - and he was treated by the media as if he were a wife-beater. Now she is trying it all over again and for a beeyotch like her to get over on this one is really ludicrous. She makes Genghis Khan look like a sissy.

What say me? Well, somehow, money keeps popping up as something they want more of.

Yeah, I think it's "the money" more so than "the principle of the thing." ;)

John and Hillary: Here's a Golden Oldie for you--"Well, there you go again." And readers--if you're younger than, say, 40, try to find the Carter-Reagan debate on Youtube. There they go again. It's amazing to me that more people don't catch the attackers crying when they, too, are attacked. It's worked for years. If it works, you get more donations, mobilize your street-walkers, and, at least temporarilly, tone down your opponent's attacks, while feeling free to continue your own. I don't remember anyone attacking John's haircuts--just laughing at them. Ditto for Hillary's--uh--debate points. I notice Obama is not yet playing that way. I read somewhere that his campaign is using Reagan as a model. Well, there we go again--this guy may be a comer.

"these people who make $100 million a year"

Gag. Pure demagoguery but this is John Edwards talking so it's hardly surprising. Edwards knows perfectly well that a good number of the people in this country who make that kind of money are actors, wall street chieftains and hedge fund managers (including his partners, ahem) who vote for and donate to Democrats. The irony is that his statement, while simplistic and cheesy, is true. No one at any income level really wants to pay taxes, but the folks in the $100 million plus bracket (including all those Democratic donors) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to set up trusts, dummy corporations, family partnerships and other complex tax avoidance devices. The Democrats' rich patrons will never abandon these privileges but will continue to make their Marie Antoinette-like demands on the rest of us. Rich Republicans avoid taxes too but at least they're not hypocrites about it.

I am sorry; I think we may be taking this a little too seriously. Lighten up folks; it's all tongue-in-cheek.

In any case, men have had (and still do) advantage for millenia...I think it's OK if Hillary uses her femininity to her advantage.

Ah, and Bush et al do not think of themselves as victims but guess what: the American public is the real victim because of Bush...
wimps refuse to show up for questions on tv but will confront terror?

A Clinton crying about being "attacked" - Dear God, that's funny.

i'd be much more confident in a leader who whines when political opponents and/or the media criticize them. i mean, imagine the flow of tears when Ahmadinejad or al-Zawahiri call them nasty names! the indignation will be a devastating weapon. that'll show em!

dutch,

You left the "vast rightwing conspiracy" from the Lewinsky affair off of your list.

It's all pretty typical. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore, except, perhaps, the "New York Money Men".

Being a self-proclaimed victim isn't anything new for Clinton. She's done it all along. Most recently, this fight with Obama is only one of three times.

She also claimed a "political" attack within a personal letter from DoD. It was Clinton who took that public, and simultaneously her who called this private exchange a "political attack." Shameless or stupid, I can't decide which.

And now she has a fundraising e-mail out asking for money because she was victimized so brutally in a Washington Post style article in which the fashion critic had the gall to note Clinton's cleavage.

She has a reputation for being too tough. I'm starting to wonder if she's tough enough for the general election.

Trust me, no one wants to shut Edwards up, especially the Republicans. The more he gets heard the more hope for Republican candidates. He is such a laughable candidate, anyone with half a brain can see through his shell game. The only person who should be concerned about what John Edwards says is John Edwards. John, repeat this phrase, "No one is listening to me, no one is listening to me, . . . . . .

spoiled children, the lot of them