Where's Hillary?

I agree with you on all point of advice. In fact, I agree so much that I'm kind of speechless.

Klein seems to forget that it was Michelle Obama who said "for the first time in my adult liefetime, I'm proud of my country."

Lay-off the Obama Kool-Aid, Klein!

The evil fester,

bubbling languidly, with creamy slowness, fetid.

A sucking splatter as the beast moves forward, slowly, stupidly

to lower it's head for yet another drink, seeing eyes, but unseeing brain

nutrition, in small amounts...

the howls in the distance, behind foul fog

snarls

looking unknowingly at the wan sun, with secure stupidity as a spot of light moves, where none should be

a failure in life, but unkowing, as eyes, uncomprehending, see it brighten

another yank at the fetid undergrowth, nutrition.

A shadow, vague, lopes off amongst the weakly shimmering fog ahead

incomprehension as shadows race, eyes close as light intrudes, too bright to see with, then

silence.

Mr. Klein.

Please go to this blog and read the following. We think it's an important issue and would appreciate your thoughtful comments on it.

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/03/back-to-1968.html#comments

Thank you.

Joe:

I have been extremely candid in the ongoing debate, and won't visit the Wright issue furthere, other than to say at least there has been progress in understanding the motivations behind such speech. To me, it was anger more than hate.

It really doesn't mater, thoug. The damage is done.

The incredible nastiness of the Wright debacle will be found to have a severe impact on Democratic chances in November.

With Hillary playing hardball, pursuing relentlessly at all costs and double teaming Obama with an even shriller and more hateful secular right wing, she has likely destroyed permanantly her chances of getting Black support for this election cycle.

As a matter of fact, 2004 may well have been the last election cycle that Dems will have counting this block as theirs.

The damage is too great, the victory "landscape" is a razed one.

If she wins, most Black Americans I know say they will sit, or if conservative, maybe even migrate to McCain, IF he can restrain the foul, screaming right wing hate speech machine.

If she wins, with it goes another loss - the endemic block of voters Obama commanded.

The piper has yet to be paid...

Hello, Joe?

It's Easter weekend. Last night was Good Friday. When I heard she went home to New York, my first thought was "That's great. She's made the decision not to campaign during this holy time"

I'm sure Obama went to a service at some church last night and will adroitly avoid the Wright mess by attending services on Sunday at a church in the state where's he's campaigning, not back in Chicago.

Various media sorts have either called on her to pull out or pronounced her campaign over.

Even though I happen to agree, the tone of this post feels like piling-on. Perhaps you started on the right foot, but by the end of the piece you sound like just another pundit suggesting that she pack it in.

The key to my take on the whole issue is how much damage does is she willing to do to the Democratic Party in order to further her personal goals. The short answer is "too damn much!" Of course comparing Obama unfavorably to John McCain is the most apparent and reprehensible example by I'm sure countless others abound. The fact that the Primary season is three times longer that the General election campaign is rather unhelpful to the cause.

And for my money, bringing some intelligence and balance to the CiC position and not rewarding belligerence is WAY more important than worrying about which Democrat ends up with the nod.

Mr. Klein, good column. I would like to see Senator Clinton demonstrate how she will lead the Democratic Party, then the nation, rather than the continuing attacks on Senator Obama. I would like to see her supporters do the same.

For example, why was Geraldine Ferraro talking about race instead of the current version of the Keating Five? And so it goes. It's not like the past seven years have left Senator Clinton with nothing to discuss. If she continues to look past Iraq, the economy, the concentration of presidential power, etc, etc, etc, then she deserves to lose.

Bad writing here Joe, just on the wording side...you turned the meaning of a phrase around...

At the end of the first big paragraph, you say..."a likely story, given his cool so far."

I think you must have meant an 'UNlikely possibility" there. I think you were trying to do snark, but you don't do it very well.

But like most of your other screed, it's probably written on the spur of the moment and not reviewed properly.

A wonderful essay on Hillary's campaign. Her campaign is emblematic of her problems, she is locked in the 90's and does not understand that the country is trying desperately to move beyond attack politics into issues. She has surrounded herself with a cast of old time hack advisors who have done her more damage than good. At this point she and President Clinton are risking their legacy and good names by their own inappropriate comments or those of their advisors. If this were early in her campaign the suggestion would be to can her advisors and find more relevant 21st Century types. But it is too late!

Bill Clinton was a hero to me. I even have an Arkansas Traveler certificate signed by him that I hung proudly in my home. I was very hopeful that Hillary would run and restore this country from the 8 years of disastrous rule by George Bush. However early on I sensed there was something wrong with Hillary's campaign. A sense of entitlement, a smugness and a laziness that created a flawed campaign strategy that all they needed to do was win the first few primaries and cakewalk in to the Presidency. They really had no ground forces for the campaign after Super Tuesday and the damage was done in South Carolina. She lost me completely after South Carolina and President Clinton diminished himself in my eyes.

Now with her campaign to enhance John McCain's Presidential credentials it leaves me wondering if she is going to pull a Liebermann. I am no longer sure who the heck she is, and that is not good for the Democratic party or the country. There is still so much good she can do for the country, but she needs to take that very painful step of focusing on a future that does not include the Presidency.

To borrow from Beck, ironically:

The chickens are coming home to roost..

The degree of the Clintons' fawning over John McCain is a bit confusing. If she wins the nomination is she going to say "ha ha,just kidding"? She's going to have a hard time touting her experience over his after what she's said.

I think she's been badly served by her advisors. The wrong assumption that she was going to win in a walk has left her campaigning in a way that lost the considerable good will she had built up. She deserved better from these people who let their own arrogance get in the way of her needs as a candidate, and brought out the worst in her.

"husband is, once again, saying stupid things."

What, is he making inappropriate jokes about people getting killed by stingrays?

Another good column, Joe.

If Clinton suspends her campaign now she can always come back in if something arises to legitimately disqualify Obama. That way the worst case scenario is that for some unforeseen reason he has to step down and then the party turns to her as its savior. She would come in as a unifier and the party would coalesce around her.

If Clinton stays in with no strategy other than sliming Obama, then the worst case scenario is that she somehow wrests the nomination from him, but splits the party long term while losing the election by a landslide in November.

Good advice. I agree on each point.

superterrificdelegate:

That won't help her. The Black vote is GONE. Toast. Nada. Zilch, as in not there.

Everyone has seen how they respond when once a candidate crosses the line between understanding and ignorance.

To hope for recovery, well, like I said, they can plant their victory flag over there.

Yes. In THAT pile of rubble...

ITA w/this column. But I think that the Richardson phone call which probably had a lot of the numbers are against you and we can't afford to abandon the AA vote is a reality check she needed. If John Edwards and Al Gore would get on the phone behind the scenes and work out a deal so that she can take the VP slot or if she doesn't want that work something so that democrats can unite.

John McCain had the worst week of his political life last week. He made enormous mistakes that illustrated a lack of comprehnsion on the state of the Middle East. This was a week MADE for the democrats. IF we had a nominee every democrat would be pushing the Teflon John is wrong scenario and defining him as another Bush; and this week gave them plenty of material.

But they choose not to do so and they stayed silent on Wright and in doing these things they are fostering resentments in the base and fracturing the party.

HRC should be offered the VP position and she should back out of the race and we should circle the wagons and talk economy, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and middle class issues from now to November.

Not tearing each other down. We can't afford to wait until June; then we will have through the negative primary defined our nominee in negative terms and won't have the time to redefine him given talk radio and Fox. We need to circle the wagons now.

I hope this weekend gives her that perspective.

This kind of piling on without admitting to piling is not surprising, since it's the lazy thing to do, and the mainstream media is often guilty of lazines. But let me point out a few things:

1. For those who take a moment to recall the campaign all last year, Hillary was relentlessly talking about her positions on the issues, and campaigning against the republicans (i.e. very few attacks on the other Democratic candidates). On the other hand, the media was chomping at the bit for Obama to run negative against Hillary and, in November and December when he started doing so, the mainstream media was outright jubilant (for proof I point people to the front page NYT article around that time with that as the theme). I'll be honest: I don't really see anything too wrong with most negative campaigning...fair is fair in politics, and it usually cracks me up when the mainstream media gets the vapors over it. But if you insist on being against negative campaigning, at least be can't you at least be consistent about it?

2. Joe's "fix" for Hillary is for her to give a transformative speech. But doesn't that get to the point as to why Hillary has been successful in winning the votes of the majority of actual Demorcrats in this primary (as opposed to the "Democrats for the day" who are behind Obama's nubmers). I.e. Hillary is running on issues, not on speechification. While Obama ran a campaign to the right of Hillary (and using right wing talking points on Health Care, Social Security, and other issues) and obfuscating this though his compelling (to some) oratory, Hillary has run on issues. Now we know that the media is lazy and relies on speeches to decide whom to support (for example, they liked GWB's speeches between 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq war, so they supported him...including Joe Klein on the Sunday talk shows). You would think that even those with short term memory would be suspicious of a person who comes along with nothing more than a good speech...but sadly I guess not.

3. Campaign surrogates et al. The media likes their inside baseball, and it is clear that the Village doesn't like the Clinton campaign staff and surrogates. But how about when your chief foreign policy expert is dumb enough to get caught calling the opposing candidate a monster? How about when your chief economic advisor gets caught telling a foreign government that they NAFTA baiting was a lie (oh, and for those who didn't catch on in the media, the Obama campaign's fliers attacking Hillary on NAFTA is an example of...wait for it....negative campaigning(!!!)...although it was an inartful attempt at negative campaigning since they were caught in an outright lie.)

I could go on, but the real long and short of it is that the media really does abandon logic when it comes to Hillary. When she runs a positive campaign, she's arrogant and Obama is begged to go negative. When she goes negative, she's evil and horrible and must stop. And the list goes on and on. The majority of Democrats, however, have shown themselves less lazy than the media, though, and focussed on the issues, seeing that Hillary is more of a Democrat than Obama is. It might not win her the nomination, but it's heartening to see nonetheless.

dk:

Whatever anyone thinks of Hillary's conduct, do you honestly think that without Black support, she has a chance of winning?

because that is gone. She has as much chance as Lott did in his Blaxpology tour.

Honestly, do you think that loss and the loss of Obama's endemic voter blocks are something she can overcome?

This is going to be a hollow victory indeed...

dk, those are great points.

I'm starting to understand why most women don't follow the MSM news...

It's astonishing to see a post like this after this past week when the Obama campaign has gone incredibly negative. I've noticed that when the Obama campaign launches an attack against Clinton, the MSM happily accepts the premise of the attack and just debates the validity of it (e.g. is it true that Hillary Clinton will do anything to win?). But when the Clinton campaign attacks Obama (e.g. Rezko, where he did at the very least mislead voters in that debate when he said he had just done a few hours work for him), the MSM always turns it around to ask whether she is going too negative. So Obama misleads voters about his relationship with Rezko, but the MSM decides that the real issue is Hillary Clinton's character.

I do think that the reports of the Democratic party being divided are basically untrue, but I can understand a lot of women not wanting to vote for the guy who has directly benefited from so much sexism. I know that Obama would be a much better President for women - on poverty, abortion, and health care - than McCain, and I personally would never support a Republican. But if McCain runs a good campaign I am starting to think that a significant number of Democrat women will decide to vote for McCain, or just stay at home.

And 53_2, the Democrats need Blacks and women to win. Which is the logic behind the joint ticket idea.

53_2,

You're probably right. I'm trying to be hopeful that if it came to it she could mend fences with Black voters.

Joe, How about another post on vile, godless hate speech. Here, let me help you out. McCain's close friend and supporter:

///Hagee has said of Hurricane Katrina, "[W]hen you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn." Hagee later defended his comment by saying, "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. ... there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. ... I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

Hagee has written, "I encourage every person who has biblical beliefs to contact their congressman and their senator on a regular basis and implore them to pass this constitutional amendment recognizing only the marriage between a man and a woman. If we fail to achieve this, the gates of hell will be opened. It will open the door to incest, to polygamy, and every conceivable marriage arrangement demented minds can possibly conceive. If God does not then punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Hagee once announced plans to hold a "slave sale" to raise money. According to the San Antonio Express-News, "Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin ... The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone' and ended with 'Make plans to come and go home with a slave.' " And Hagee has written "Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist" and "only a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man. ...The man has the God-given role to be the loving leader of the home."

According to Hagee, McCain actively sought his endorsement.
////

Courtesy the research staff at Media Matters.

Rose,

I honestly think the damage has been done. Ferraro was what did serious damage, and now, when the firestorm of "guilt by association" has faded, the landscape is bleak.

I don't want to minimize women as a voting block, but the choice to play hardball, then hang Obama out to dry on Wright has probably killed any chances whatsoever of reconciliation with the Black voter block.

superterrificdelegate:

With the differnce in outrage, then Hillary's attacks on Obama, in concert with the shrill right wing hate speech, which even as we speak, goes on uninterrupted and ignored, hope is just not in the cards.

Black voters have been complaining for years about being taken for granted, and they were tossed in front of the train on this one.

53_2,

I suppose you could be right, but I haven't seen the proof that a large number of black voters would not vote for Hillary if she were the nominee. Just because they are voting for Obama in overwhelming numbers now isn't conclusive that it's a vote "against" Clinton, it could be a vote "for" Obama. If you've seen polls stating that large marjorities of black voters have a highly negative view of Hillary, I'd be interested in seeing them.

But even if you were right at this point in time, I could make the same argument that there is an equally large number of Hillary supporters who, at this point in time, would not vote for Obama in the GE.

To be honest, though, I'm not going to sit here making that argument, because I think it's a bad way to choose a candidate. A lot can happen between now and November, and hanging it all on electability arguments this far out is speculative at best. I prefer to focus on issues, and I've seen a campaign where on the important domestic issues, Hillary is to the left of Obama. And my bet is that this is why the majority of Democrats have been supporting her too. That's the point I was trying to make on that front. And, of course, the lazy media argument.

Clinton has been using desperate tactics since March 1, tactics that succeeded immediately, like NAFTA, and McCain CinC and her enormous role in policy making in the WJC WH.

But those stories don't stand scrutiny, so then she went to the unelectability race card. This was, again, successful in the short term in raising Obama's negatives, and might well reverse the pattern of Obama closing a substantial double digit poll lead.

Now these two gambits have run their course. The vacuity of the first is obvious. Obama, wrt his audience, turned the electability argument around, and then started his general election campaign.

All she's got left is a Hail Mary. Whether that's the combination of elements that Joe calls for, or some other combination, that's what she needs.

Obama will adopt her inevitability strategy going forward.

Rose--

Which is the logic behind the joint ticket idea

If she had proposed the dream team with herself on the bottom, everybody would have been overjoyed--except for Obama, and, (this is the real point) Clinton. A Clinton VP would have about as much influence in an Obama administration as Nixon or Johnson did in their times. That's a step down from a deeply engaged First Lady role.

In the event, the way she floated it hurt her.

dk and Rose, great posts.

One of the many things that drive me crazy about how the MSM covers HRC as opposed to how they carry Obama's water concerns the negativity issue. Many pundits, such as Jonathan Alter from Newsweek, really focused on how HRC's being the nominee would revitalize the rightwing base and bring them out in force. And yet, very few in the press are willing to admit that Obama's connection with Wright will do the same thing. The issue of the Repug's base is now a moot point when it comes to the Dem candidate.

53, yes, I do believe black voters would come out for HRC, just as women voters who have been absolutely devoted to Hillary will vote for Obama in the fall if he's our nominee. It's incredibly condescending to blacks to say they only care about race and won't decide on issues when the election is actually at hand.

Also, I've yet to see any of the besotted MSM talk about how low Obama's numbers are and how he has not sealed the deal. And this was the case before Wright. So, despite the fact that reporters trip all over themselves to praise Obama and routinely say negative things about HRC, Obama has not taken a huge lead over HRC.

And it would be incredibly lame to say his numbers would be higher if she was gone. If the majority of Dems were really sold on Obama he would have higher poll numbers now, when she's still in the race.

Southern Bell...

Perfectly on point!

"And it would be incredibly lame to say his numbers would be higher if she was gone. If the majority of Dems were really sold on Obama he would have higher poll numbers now, when she's still in the race."

53-2 - I know a lot of people who won't vote for Obama if he's the candidate - so what goes around, comes around.

And while we chase our tails between Obama and Clinton the White House laughs and destroys evidence.
http://tinyurl.com/yus6ex

Hillary & Bill have got in Bed with the Republicans through Rush Limbaugh to help get her over the top in Texas & Ohio through Republican votes. She has compared herself to McCain, Bill has aligned himself with the first Pres. Bush and they seem more like Republicans in their abusive and destructive attacks on Obama which are more than the kitchen sink. They have divided not just the Democratic Party but the country as a whole through race and gender in their quest for power. They have lied, distorted, smeared and in the process have shown that they, not Barack, are unfit to lead the America in the 21st Centurty. We have to move away from bitterness, divisiveness if we are to attack the monumental problems that face us today. Barack through his trial-by-fire has shown by his character not to be critical or to become embittered or to blame but to continue to show grace under fire and a steadfastness of purpose that he indeed can lead and reach across the aisle with unity to work for the common good. He does not have the time it seems to reflect on his own ego as the American problems are way to big much bigger than his own ego. And if Hillary really cared for the country, she would get out because she will only continue to try to further damage Barack, to try to make him "unelectable" but in this quest, she must watch out that the Chickens do not come home to Roost and make her "unelectable"!

All,

I'm not involved in any tit for tat.

The problem is, and you clearly can't comprened it, is that Hillary tacitly aligned herself with the shrill right wing and McCain.

This is following her reluctance on Ferraro.

And as a reminder, that 91:9 edge Obama had with Black voters was NOT an ethnic identity vote.

It IS, however, YOUR future...
You can smoke whatever you want, but you are barking up an empty tree...

Paul-no not that one:

Yes, and while they plant their victory flag in the rubble of their ignorance, the Republicans, who should have had no chance whatever, will win again.

Sorry, I forgot:

Barking dogs don't smoke...

This is the line of Joe's post that most disturbs me: "Moreover, the attractive, fighting, emotionally accessible Clinton has gone into hibernation again--since Texas and Ohio"

Why does the media get so excited about "emotional availabilty?"

Why don't we just elect Dr. Phil president if this is the criteria the media think is important?

I don't see why Hillary or Obama should have to prove emotional availability to anyone. I hate that whenever Hillary cries it is some transcendant moment for the media to use to proclaim her humanity and give her an electoral boost with women. And now Joe is basically conseling her to do more of that...maybe some more tears might help.

Barack Obama is not particularly "emotionally available" nor should he be asked to be. It's a ridiculous parameter to jusge someone on.

Why don't we talk about the advatnages of having a president with a calm and clooected temprament, even when under fire.

The media never talk about this, because of course that is a metric that favors Obama. Saturday Night Live would rather create its own opposite reality that somehow Obama would lose his cool to the calm Hillary in crises when everything in this campaign has suggested the opposite.

One of the few things that has preserved Hillary's candidacy as long as it has been preserved has been the media's endless narratives about Hillary's great humanity.

Here's some irony...Oprah may have endorsed Obama, but the media is acting like Oprah with Hillary acting like her guest to be rah-rah'd and the audience is the electorate taking it all in like uncritical sheep.

Rose, All:

You miss the point. Hillary's campaign went racial with Ferraro. At that point she could have been forgiven.

However, the absolute bottom was hit when she tacitly accepted hate speech from the right by alinging herself with McCain in a concentrate, joint lynching with a chorus of shrill hate speech from the right.

It isn't hard to figure this one out, ladies and gentlement. It's all a matter of perspective, a test that you failed horribly in when she chose to go that direction.

As a matter of point, the Renzo and other attacks aren't even a blip on the radar screen.

That was acceptable hardball, this was NOT.

AND, you WILL pay the piper...

The last few posts from Obama supporters is quite illustrative.

Take the issue of the electability argument. Now, I pointed in out in one of my above comments that I'm not particularly impressed by electability arguments on either side. So much can happen between now and November that the whole electability issue is nothing more than speculation at this point (at least, that's my opinion).

The real question is how making the electability argument is perceived. When Obama makes it, according to the Obama supporters, it should just be accepted as fact (without any real social science data to support it). When Clinton makes the electability argument, the reaction is that by making the argument, Clinton is somehow evil, or racist, or some other epithet that attacks her character.

It's one thing to look at the electability arguments from both sides and, using facts, try to debate the marits of those arguments. But to argue that one side can make the arguments, while argue against the other side's right to make the same argument is just plain illogical.

Now, I'm not going to argue with passionate Obama supporters about this, because they are passionate supporters, and it's understandable that emotion gets the better of them. My problem is when so-called journalists like Joe Klein do it. In my view, it just damages their credibility.

I am guessing Hillary is at home. As the dutiful wife of Bill, she is counting up what is left of the superdels not coloring easter eggs.

Latest polls in PA:
PPP (D) 03/15 - 03/16 597 LV 56 30 Clinton +26.0

Read them and weep!!! Obamanuts

Actually, dk, I am an Obama supporter, but it doesn't really matter.

Obama's further participation or lack thereof doesn't matter.

Your views on race don't matter.

You can even say the sun has set, or whatever.

But. BUT:

What I quoted to you was the exact price you will have to pay. And that price will be the same regardless of how good or bad you percieve her - or how good or bad you percieve him.

The price the Democratic party will pay will be very, VERY hing indeed.

Crunch all you want, we'll make more...

Like I said, rustoleaum, plant that flag wherever you wish...

2.a. Start attacking Bill Clinton, particularly when he attacks Obama unfairly...

THE flag has been planted 53_2, right in Pennsylvania. A great State known for its wisdom, and when to say the far-left liberals are NOT in control of the democratic party. With Pennsylvania strongly showing support for Hillary, the momentum moves to North Carolina.

Already in his speech in Oregon today, Dear Barak is on the defensive about Bill's speech in NC. Barak is touting some lame duck retired General and again feebly trying desparately clinging to some patriotic coattails proving his patriotism.

I'll say it, and keep on saying it you cannot align yourself with demagogs who preach hate, preach delusional thoughts that HIV was created by the government and dry hump pulpits on Sundays in front of children.

Just saying, "oh heck, he's a little controversial I guess, but so was my TYPICAL white grandmother too", is NOT how you intelligently win anyone over, let alone MILLIONS of white independent and Reagan Democrats.

I'll let you know the buzz at my UCC Church is after I get home from the service. I'm guessing SHAME SHAME SHAME on YOU Barak Obama!

Dear Joe, if you do not think that she is not in complete control of her campaign, you are getting high.

It was her decision to go negative. It was her decision to try to push Obama down.

She tried with the positive stuff and it didn't work. She has nothing left.

IMHO she does neither herself or her followers any favors by continuing this delusional march to destruction.

Yes, it's probably not the presses job to tell her to get out. But I do feel it's MY JOB, as long time democratic voter, to tell her that.

Even though I happen to agree, the tone of this post feels like piling-on.

Perhaps, but the advice is sound. To Democrats like me, the Hillary campaign represents the kidn of nasty political machinations we want to get past. As a president, a decision-maker, I might even prefer Hillary over Obama. But as a campaign, it's become Rove-lite.

HiJoe,

The Hillary and Barack debate has not met its logical conclusion, as indicated by the commentary. The presidenatial debates about issues of concern in this nation, should be an ongoing discussion until the moment that we have a sitting president.

The debates should cover the issues that many of us have in its proper context. If Hillary cannot win without the black vote as it was stated, or without other groups, White males, Hispanics, Jewish or Asian. Then what issues have not been addressed, to better elucidate her views in these areas.

The concerns are many and will be entrusted to the care of one. We should hope that both Hillary and Obama use this weekend to reflect upon the negatives that has transpired recently and to begin the process of healing and nuturing that is needed in this country.

My prayers are with those who have lost homes and who are battling to perserve their homes in Missouri. It is my prayer that we can also focus our attention on those who are battling to perserve their homes throughout this nation, due to policies that have put many of our fellow Americans at risk.

I believe it is more that unforunate to find ourselves remembering talk of hate and anger, in a time were recociliation is needed. We have historic candidates all around, first Women, Black, Eldest. We had a historic speech on race still not given the air time of hate speech. We should be talking about the next ground breaking speech on womens issues, the elderly or the disabled. Let us hope!

There seems to be a step by step approach here and elsewhere to nudge Clinton out of the race. Joe's piece is intellectually dishonest. Who do pundits and journalists think they are to tell a candidate to leave the race? Isn't that a job for voters.

Joe, if you really want to do something useful get off your butt, stop conferring with your DOD and Political sources, stand for office and ask for people to vote for you. I will then issue a release calling on you to withdraw for some trumped up reason.

You people hunt in packs: van den Hei, Mike Allen, MS and now you: your arrogance knows no bounds.

Well, Rusty Dog, you might want to thinking twice before humping the leg of that poll.

It's 6 days old and pre-Obama speech.

The national tracks seem to suggest a post-speech uptick..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

There's 4 weeks until voting.

Paid media just started.

Hillary is already expected to win PA big...

But feel free to yuk it up if you like...

But you might want to read this from the very pro-Hillary Mark Halperin:

http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-painful-things-hillary-clinton-knows-%E2%80%94-or-should-know/

As I said in yesterday's thread: If anyone thinks Clinton can win this, play with this delegate calendar:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

And read this Jon Chait essay:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

They pretty much sum things up. I don't think she should leave the race, but at this point, her only hope is for an epic Obama mistake.

Rusty:

The price the Democrats will pay is going to be the same, regardless of the sediments.

Enjoy...

Hi Joe,

I hope my last comment answers the question about Hillary, We need to stick to issues and not always discuss what divides us. Again lets have some hope!

bradsbeatblog.blogspot.com

They pretty much sum things up. I don't think she should leave the race, but at this point, her only hope is for an epic Obama mistake.

I think she should.

Her only hope is to push Obama off a cliff. The democratic voters who have come out in droves to support Obama will not forgive her for that.

She should do the right thing and withdraw.

Hell, she doesn't have any money anyway- how the hell is she going to compete going forward?

jayackroyd, it was very smart of Clinton to float the idea of a Clinton-Obama ticket, because it helped reassure Superdelegates who share 53_2's concerns. Since the Texas and Ohio elections the number of Superdelegates endorsing Obama has slowed, and the talk of a Clinton-Obama ticket may have been critical in this. I used to agree with you that Clinton has little reason to accept a VP nomination. But that may have changed now that an Obama victory looks very unlikely. Now if she accepts the nomination all she will probably have to do is campaign for three months and then she'll be in a much stronger position for 2012.

53_2 - Have you seen the Jesse Jackson Jr. Katrina/tears video? I'm very curious about what you think of it.

It does seem that there is little concern among the Superdelegates and the MSM about women being unwilling to vote for Obama. Of course, these are the same people who constantly seem surprised by Clinton coming back from near political death by winning huge support from women, so they seem very out of touch with women voters. And because of demographics, only a small number of women have to turn away from Obama for the Democrats to have huge problems.

Southern Bell, great points. And I certainly don't mean to imply that women - or African-Americans - are one-issue voters. I actually just wrote an essay on the MSM's bias against women voters. And if women aren't trusted to vote competently, it's unlikely that they will be trusted to govern competently. It's amazing how the media thinks we only vote for Clinton because we feel sorry for her, or because the MSM doesn't like her (wouldn't she get even more support if she had the same kind of glowing coverage Obama gets?), or because we will just blindly support any woman.

But Obama does risk losing the support of a small - but significant - number of Democratic women. I think white men would respond in the same way if in some alternate universe they felt that a white man running for President was the target of prejudice. I am still optimistic that the great majority of Democrats will stay united in November regardless of who gets the nomination. (I am not so optimistic about Independents and Reagan Democrats). But I am worried that if McCain runs a smart campaign he could get a significant number of Democratic women to vote for him, or feel (falsely) comfortable enough with the idea of a McCain presidency to stay home.

As I've mentioned in my other posts, I think that Obama has major general election problems that go far beyond any concerns of alienating Democratic women. But we shouldn't forget that Kerry lost last time largely because he didn't maintain the gender gap.

RKA, general election voters want emotionally available. So Joe and other members of the MSM - who I constantly criticize on other topics! - are right to talk about this. I know that there is a chicken/egg dimension to this debate, but I'm not sure how relevant that is at the moment. Being perceived as cold and condescending really hurt both Gore and Kerry. So when Obama is constantly praised by his Democratic supporters for being cool and composed, it is a little worrying.

We all have our differences, but I hate to say it, they have shot the dog...

Hillary does not have a chance, no chance whatsoever, to mend fences with the Black vote. And that's even if he accepts a VP post, which I doubt he will accept.

She went racial and tacitly accepted a racially based "guilt by association" attack in concert with Republicans, though without communicating with them.

They know which way the bread was buttered. It was supposed to be McCain vs. Hillary all along, and he spoiled it.

So, in concert with Fox playing sweet hate music in the backround McCain drove the train while Hillery tossed him, and the Black vote, under it.

Rose,

I think these older women will be pissed, that is true.

Obama could put Sebeius on the ticket...but she has no national security cred...but otherwise a great choice.

I think Richardson might be the better bet, however.

I wonder if McCain might respond and try to pull a Mondale and pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Contrary to conservative dreams, I think there is no way that Condi runs for VP)

But in any case, I think the women can be brought back. Will they allow Roe V Wade to be overturned out of spite? I doubt Justice Stevens can hold on another 4 years and then it's gone if there is no dem in the white house. Funny Irony that the overturn of Roe v Wade could be hillary's legacy if she succeeds in dividing the party.

Oh, and don't worry...nobody is going to worry about an orator like Obama being too cold. Not going to happen.

My point is, Rose, it really doesn't matter whether I'm a supporter of not. I'm not particulary fond of Jesse Jackson, but Katrina is a fiery red scarf waved in front of a bull when it comes to the Black voters.

I've been talking to members of extended family all over the country, and what I say is true. It also fits with the dismal 91:9 results in Mississippi - when you begin to see numbers like that, comparable to what Republicans get, you can be pretty sure that she is held in very low opinion even prior to the foul deeds of the last few weeks.

I'm not even going to bother looking at that video. It's irrelevant. All you would prove is whether or not I'm a "this" or "that".

Just like rusty the dog, what point is that? It really does not matter.

You are taking the Black vote, I'm afraid, as much for granted as anyone else when you assume all will be well.

It won't. Actions speak far, FAR louder than words, and even a Obama joint ticket might be interpreted as his turning his back on that electorate to, again, further ambitions of getting elected.

It's a matter of prespective, and the damage has been done. Once one goes racial on the Black community, you can forget it. With Ferraro, once bitten. With Obama's lynching?

Twice shy.

I don't know where Hillary is today, but I do know that MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan has a piece up on his website, hitting every white supremacist note known to man. You gotta love the standards at MSNBC that they employ such a vile individual as Pat "Adolf Hitler Was a Great Man" Buchanan.

Floda:

Yup. Rusty-the-dog will have his day.

I've packed it up for this one and hoping voters will get tired enough of things by 2012 to actually try a bit of applying perspective to this situation.

Like I've said. They shot the dog. Too bad it's not Rusty...

. But that may have changed now that an Obama victory looks very unlikely.

If that is your operating assumption, then we'll have a hard time having a productive conversation.

It is so, so unfortunate that with the possibility of a tsunami in the House and Senate that we are getting caught up on substanceless issues of personality and what Christy Hardin Smith calls poo-flinging, on both sides.

Yes. How "balanced" we are as a nation.

An antisemitic racist with roots in the militias as a "political analyist" on a network like MSNBC.

Like I've said:

We've shot the dog...

I'm sorry to see the media is once again taking Clinton's comments out of context, just like South Carolina, I wonder if we will eventually uncover the Obama memo with all the particulars. I am really sorry to see this kind of campaign in the democratic party. First Jesse Jackson Jr. threatens, Wilder confirms and its Bill Clintons fault. It's about time the media did a fact check on the Honorable Sen. Obama. I thought he wanted every vote counted, how about Mich. and Fla.? They are certainly pushing Hillary out before Penn and W. Virginia, any thoughts?

And another thing that drives me crazy about the media is that it's perfectly fine as far as they're concerned for some of them to insist HRC would never be running for president if she wasn't the wife of Bill Clinton but it's not okay for others to say that Obama's rise to this level of prominence has to do with his being black.

The media should either condemn both attitudes or allow that both are possible.

One has to wonder how the Obama camp would be acting if he was a bit behind in the popular vote but was doing well in FL polls. Would they insist Florida Dems shouldn't be penalized by unfair rules and would the MSM solemnly be castigating HRC for insisting the rules needed to be followed?

I think not. If the situations were reversed, the MSM would be championing Obama and making snippy comments about HRC.

It's truly amazing to me Hillary continues to draw as much support as she does when I consider the unfairness of the media's coverage of her.

jayackroyd, I've explained my thinking about Obama's chances in the general in other threads. I didn't want to bore everyone by repeating myself!

53_2,

I was just genuinely curious. There was no agenda to call you a "this" or a "that." Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

And of course there is a lot of racial polarization in the Democratic party, and it may still be a problem in November. I'm not "assuming that all will be well." But I don't think that all of the 91% of African-Americans in Mississippi who voted for Obama were voting against Clinton. Just as I don't think that all of the 75% of white people who voted for Clinton in Mississippi were voting against Obama. I'm not that pessimistic.

The truth is that both Obama and Clinton have alienated core demographics of the Democratic party. Just as John McCain has done with the Republican party. But like Southern Bell, I believe that most African-Americans will support Clinton, just as most Democratic women will support Obama. RKA made some excellent points about why women should support Obama over McCain, and there are many reasons for African-Americans to support Clinton over McCain. Obviously both Clinton and Obama will need to work at bringing the party together.

Anyway, I want to make it clear that I'm not minimizing the problems Clinton faces with African-American voters. I'm just saying that Obama faces bigger problems with Independents and Reagan Democrats, and to a much lesser extent Democratic women. Also, Republicans are much better positioned to exploit Obama's electoral problems than Clinton's electoral problems. It's a bad situation. Honestly, both of them cannot win without winning back some core demographic groups that they have alienated.

Rose:

I'm not too concerned about the video anyway. The title is kind of put-offish anyway.

The fact is that I was suggesting just the opposite on the vote in Mississippi. That 91-9 vote followed some gaffes that were interpreted negatively by Black voter and a combination of their learned evaluation of the two candidates.

The problem is, she could have been OK had the thing ended with the Ferraro gaffe, which also, incidentally insulted white voters. Her apologies to Black voters some week and a half ago would have meant something had she chose not to hardball the Wright thing.

The Wright issue, regardless of anyone's take, needs perspectives provided by not just one, but, count 'em, four seperate instances of illegal experimentation in the past on Blacks in various parts of the world. Two here, posted by James, LA, one, a rumor, posted by jayackroyd, and the Tuskegee experiment, the most famous of these instances. There's the core of the anger filled "AIDS" statement.

That was ignored.

Jena and Katrina stand as context behind the angry "US of KKK" remark.

They are both angry and divisive, which I accept, and which Obama alluded to. Most Black Americans see it that way. Not all, but most. This is the point I'm seriously trying to make and a serious flaw with respect to Hillary's choice to hardball alongside the Republicans with the Fox hate machine singing in the background.

What you fail to understand, and you can't, until you try to actually use persepctive on this, is that Hillary was given some trouble of Ferraro, whom she sacked. Obama also sacked Wright, and rejected his statments, but was asked to disown his own father-figure in the absence of his real dad.

He refused.

The proceedings of the past few weeks struck at the very core of the beliefs that surround the Black communty:

The failure to recognize the past, the equation of anti-American sentiment with hate speech, the marginalizing of the diffent - and - justified outlook Black American have about this country.

I've referred to it as a lynching, and a lynching it is, because unlike Hillary, was caught some heat over Ferraro, and McCain, who caught just a tiny bump for his underling's airing of a racist video, Obama was absolutely pillorized in concert by three agencies:

Hillary, who acted separately, attacking Obama relentlessly, knowing full well that McCain was attacking on another front, and the Fox machine attacking on a third, with a full chorus of REAL hate speech.

I ask you. Use your head. How do YOU think this would play in the Black community? How do you think they should react? How has the Black community reacted in the past to racially motivated attacks on candidates of their liking?

If you look fairly at these issues, which do indeed involve perspective, you will see that we indeed have shot the dog.

What I would do is realize this is not a victory for Hillary - and the price can be devastating.

Can we get off fighting each other for a bit? I am not even American and I find it amazing how the Democrats are attacking each other left right and centre. Yes, I am an Obama person because I see Nelson Mandela in him. http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/19/obama-is-no-mandela/

But don't give the Republicans this election please.

I think either Hillary or Obama in the White House would be sooo much better than McCain that it's like arguing which is best: raspberry ice cream, peach ice cream, or gruel.

The horserace aside, I'm going to take advantage of this site to try to get through to the MSM; it's the only way I know:

How about a story about the way we've been bribing the northern Iraq Sunnis since the "surge" began, to do our dirty work and get rid of Al Quaeda, and NOW we've stopped paying them!

Here's the link to The Guardian's you-tube video, courtesty of Digby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0DpmTls26s&eurl=http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/

So we've got tens of thousands of truly (and understandably) angry Sunnis who have been paid $10 a day and heavily armed with state-of-the-art American weaponry, at a grand cost of about $24 million U.S. taxpayer dollars *per day.* Their funding has been now cut off. For some reason they are feeling betrayed by the US.

That is, IMNSHO, worth looking into.

I'm sorry AA, they have shot the dog.

I don't think it is possible to repair the damage this election cycle. I would hope it would have been but the damage is too great.

I will grant that I could be wrong, but that is pretty remote, given the events, what I've heard, and what I've seen.

H. Lee:

We accidentally killed 6, this morning, I hear.

Oh, well. Collateral damage, "we regret", "we are checking that report", etc. etc. etc.

Rose:

"bigger problems with Independents and Reagan Democrats and to a much lesser extent Democratic women"

The problem is, Rose, the above is a PRODUCT of what I refer to as a lynching, not the cause.

Unlike Hillary and McCain, who have both avoided being tarred by their respective associations, both of whom (Ferraro and Hagee) were worse than Rev Wright, Obama could not. He was hung out to dry.

And Hillary helped.

Well, I can see that a slice of the Democratic older woman vote may have been alienated, but I just don't see that Obama won't do much better with Independents and Reagan Democrats than Hillary Clinton. I can't see any evidence that she has a significant appeal to either group, or that she can match what Obama offers in terms of new voters. We do know that young voters have trended much more towards the Democrats - and that they go for Obama. That seems worth bearing in mind, not just now, but for the longer term.

Overall, we don't really know much about where matters stand for November, but given that the economy is going south, Bush remains massively unpopular, and that Iraq ain't going to get better any time soon, I'd say this is still the Democrats' election to lose. Sure, Clinton is making a fool of herself with this lame negative campaign, although all she's doing is make a run in 2012 impossible. I don't think she has seriously damaged Obama, just given his team a useful preview of what the Republicans will try. Better to get some of the negative stuff in the open now and defuse for the future.

Basically, come November, Obama will run against a McCain who many conservatives distrust and even detest, with good prospects of keeping the Independents away from him. That seems likely to me to produce a solid win, and I'd like to see Democrats being optimistic, rather than giving in to anticipatory despair.

"3. Speaking of campaign surrogates, stop the daily conference calls. They are so four cycles ago...and I can't think of the last time that Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson or Phil Singer said anything that had a positive impact--or even a positive negative impact--on this campaign."

Not entirely correct. Team Clinton has thus far managed to pull off an outrageous Jedi Mind Trick.

"Yeah, we know, he gave some speech in 2002 ... more words, lovely, flowery words ... yeah yeah yeah we know all about it."

Ahem. Check it out. THOSE ARE THE DROIDS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.

I think one thing that is wrong with the way Dems are thinking is that Obama's demographics are Hillary's just because they are both Democrats.

They couldn't be more wrong, and all of the people analysing this are making that very assumption.

Sure, Obama and Hillary could make a deal, but the endemics aren't likely to tranfer, even if they reach an agreement.

Of course, that's assuming Obama is rendered "unelectable" which may not actually occur.

53_2,

There, I think you are right. Obama's demographics are decidedly to the right of Hillary. Hillary is winning with Democrats, while Obama is winning with Independents and Republicans.

dk, all you need to do is say that caucus states don't count, and you'll be perfectly positioned for Team Clinton. Sorry, but Obama did not win eg. Wisconsin, Virginia, Washington or Maryland by relying on Independents or Republicans. He has strong Democratic support, and you are mistaken in the way you are framing this.

53_2

I think your analysis is correct. There may be a semantic difference being debated. The Democratic Presidential candidate will get the bulk of the African-American votes. The numbers of Blacks who will turn out to support Hillary will be less than those who would turn out to support Obama.

Hillary gets the bulk of Centrist, Conservative, and DLC Democrats. Obama gets the bulk of the Progressives and Independents.

I don't see a significant portion of African-Americans generating the get out to vote enthusiasm that will be needed in November. Independents can be lured back into Obama's camp as the Wright issue dies down and the economy and Iraq take center stage again.

What is really interesting is what happens in the future if the wingnut wing of the GOP becomes diminished by McCain. If Limbaugh, Coulter, Krauthammer etc are less powerful, then the GOP becomes slightly more palatable to African-Americans, especially if it's to send a message to the Democratic Party.

Note that McCain has actually said that he did not want to use Rev wright against Obama. This position is partially political and partially self preservation. McCain has Hagee and Parsley as supporters so he may not want any attention given to his own pastors. While McCain made a "let's move on from this stuff" statement on Rev Wright, Hillary has been relatively silent.
Some African-Americans may feel that we can tolerate a Pat Buchanan just as well as we can tolerate a Geraldine Ferraro. The two seem to represent Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum from a standpoint of Cuacasian racial sensitivity.

The Supreme Court is a major issue from a standpoint of many Democrats. However the Court has already virtually destroyed he big issue for African-Americans, affirmative action. Thus the threat of more Conservative judges will not create enough fear to work in Hillary's favor.

The Clinton's scorched earth campaign may have long term effects that will be detrimental to the Democratic Party in the long term. The only way I see Hillary gaining votes is if there are state races that African-Americans have strong feelings about. In that case Clinton may get a "since I'm here anyway" vote.

Just some random thoughts

I am in complete agreement with Joe. Last year, Hillary stated, when she announced her candidacy, that she, "was in it to win." There are some in her immediate campaign staff that needs to go. Hillary needs to have a national forum to lay out her vision for America. Hillary needs to focus on the issue and forget the SLEEZE FACTOR coming from the Obama camp. Hillary needs to start her attacks on John McCain. Hillary will be campaigning in the fall as the NOMINEE for the Democratic Party against McCain. McCain will be the second Senator from Arizona to have been landslided by a Democrat, the first being Barry Goldwater running against Lyndon Johnson.
The main aspects of what Hillary needs to do is to focus on what she knows best. Obama or McCain cannot bring the US back to the World Theater as was back in the 90s. Hillary is beloved by all of our Allies. Hillary has the experience for CHANGE. Neither Obama or McCain can make ths claim. All Democrats should start their rally around Hillary and make this the most unforgetable and historic election ever in our Nation. Other countries have had successful Female leaders. Hillary will add her Expertise to the list. Hillary will have a legacy of being one of the best Presidents this country has ever had.

I found Pastor Wright's comment's distasteful and his embrace of Louis Farrakhan abhorent. That being said, trying to belittle the anger of Black Americans is not only misguided, it is wrong. The worst evil the world faced was the Nazi's in World War II. Black soldiers faught and gave their lives but were not allowed to stay in the same barracks with White soldiers and were treated like third class citizens at best. Yet, when they died, their blood was no different than their White counterparts. They returned home to water fountains they were not allowed to drink from, restaurants they were not allowed to eat in, and had to sit in the back of the bus. The Tuskegee episode had the American government using Blacks as experimental guinea pigs. While I too find accusations of the government manufacturing the HIV virus to murder Blacks outrageous any Black American that was taught about the Tuskegee disgrace has reason to doubt their government. Voter suppression of Blacks was rampant and even as recently as the 2000 election for President there were allegations of attempts to turn away Black voters. The entire world saw Black bodies floating down the flooded streets of New Orleans as the federal government stood by and did nothing as the Black neighborhoods of New Orleans were destroyed. Today, in 2008, Black men are still stopped at random by policemen for the sole reason they are Black. A Black man trying to catch a taxi in most major cities in America has a less than 50% chance the taxi will stop for them. Yes, I abhor what Reverend Wright says. I am White and I am Jewish but I still can understand his anger and the anger and doubts of most Black Americans. We can criticize him all we want for hating us but history shows his animosity is most definitely not make believe. There were wrongs that were righted and wrongs and injustice that still must be righted, but we do our country a great disservice by dismissing everything the man said as ranting and raving. We cannot move forward if we cannot understand our past and we must embrace each other as equals and treat each other as we would like others to treat us.

53_2, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if you extend your argument to its logical conclusion, you seem to be saying that neither Obama or Clinton has a chance in November. I understand what you're saying about the African-American vote, but if Clinton and McCain are joining with Fox News to exploit this, as you're saying they are, and their poll numbers are staying strong and in many cases actually going up, that says a lot about how America views race. Would the America that tolerates race-baiting in Clinton and McCain (as you suggest) elect Obama to the Presidency?

However, I do strongly disagree with the assumptions you make in your argument. First, privately pointing out that Obama faces major problems in November because of his relationship with Wright is not the same as using racist Fox News style attacks. It may very well be out of line but it's not a political "lynching." This is a time for some perspective. Second, things like the Jesse Jackson Jr. video are important because they show that there are a lot of demographic groups that are at risk of becoming alienated. And it's not all because of Clinton, McCain, and Fox News; All the campaigns and the MSM deserve blame. Third, Ferraro and Clinton are not very close. It's just objectively speaking not as big a story as Obama's relationship with Wright.

And I am really not denying that African-Americans have a different historical perspective than the typical White American one. I actually agree with about 95% of Wright's controversial remarks. I'm not saying that if I were an African-American I would be fine with how Obama is treated. I am angered by the racism he is the target of and as a woman I am angered by the sexism of the Obama campaign and the MSM, so it's not like I've never been upset about prejudice in politics. And I'll admit that as a biracial person I do get really upset when people criticize Obama for being, well, biracial and not 100% black, like that's some kind of weakness. Also, I find the fascination with his biracial heritage a little weird...

But to quote from what a I wrote in a different thread: "The sad truth is that if you're running for President and you're not a white man, you're walking a tightrope. And Obama has fallen off. If Clinton had spent her Sundays with Andrea Dworkin for 20 years, she would have also fallen off."

Maybe I'm wrong. But if you're right that Clinton, McCain and the MSM are essentially engaged in a political lynching, yes it's true that African-Americans will either get the chance to vote for Obama or stay home. But it's also true that the America that tolerates a political lynching won't vote for someone who is close to Wright.

Anyway, I am actually not nearly this pessimistic about America. Obviously both Clinton and Obama are held to a higher standard than McCain, but it's not an impossible standard. This is what African-Americans and women have faced in the past when they broke into fields like medicine, law, business, the arts, and the military. And they've had a lot of success. But if we deny the existence of the double standard, we risk electing a man who will give Wright a lot more fodder for his sermons.

Southern Bell said:
...I do believe black voters would come out for HRC, just as women voters who have been absolutely devoted to Hillary will vote for Obama in the fall if he's our nominee. It's incredibly condescending to blacks to say they only care about race and won't decide on issues when the election is actually at hand.

Here is where I think you are wrong on this issue and 53_2 has made reference to this with the Ferraro discussion. If this contest had never shifted to the issue of race during and after NH from the Clinton team, then I would agree that African American voters would generally vote for her as the nominee. But it is the WAY the Clinton team backdoored the issue of race into the campaign to try and bring Obama down that has left a lasting sting. And with Clinton allowing Ferraro's quotes sit there and get worse with every interview, it re-opened the wound again.

You can accuse Obama of plenty of nefarious campaign tactics, but I do not think he could be accused of playing the gender card (for lack of a better term) against Hillary. His campaign has never gone there. That is a crucial difference, at least in perception.

For me, the issue with the Clinton campaign that I still can't get over (and it was absolutely revived by Bill in NC, read the whole quote, not the one paragraph we have all seen) ) was when she herself, not a surrogate, took the side of the Republican against a fellow Democrat on the Commander in Chief issue. Siding with the opposition was the biggest single mistake of her campaign.

One final thought: is it me, or does it seem like that Rusty dog fellow laid a big fart in the middle of an otherwise reasonably civil discussion between he Obama & Clinton supporters here?

Swarty,

That's fine if that was your line of the sand with Clinton. On the other hand, my line in the sand with Obama was his use of the Harry and Louise style ad against health care reform. I don't vote for Republicans, so if it's between McCain and Obama, I might not be able to vote for either one. Only a Republican could try to torpedo health care reform in that way. Unless Obama can prove he's actually a Democrat (which he hasn't seemingly been able to do given that he isn't winning the majority of Democrats in the primaries), we have a real problem.

dk,

Are you saying the image of the man and woman on the flyer is what did you in re: Obama, or the substance of the flyer? Or both?

Would the substance of the flyer have been any less onerous if the visual image was not so similar? (for the record, I agree that the visuals are similar and intentional, and not a good move by the Obama campaign). I'm guessing it was the type of attack, Republican playbook style, that tipped you. Fair enough. I know it pissed off a lot of people in our party. I hated the visual, but the rest of the attack was fair, even though I believe her position is the "purer" one.

For me, that attack, as wrongheaded as it was, did not take the republican position in the election. That is a crucial difference to me in our two sand lines.

My beef with Hillary was never with her attacks against Obama on healthcare. Those were substantive and for some of her best debate moments. No matter who is our candidate, this will be one area of absolute strength for our party. Their two positions are closer than the heated arguments on it have been.

#4-Firing Mark Penn

This has been called on by voters, supporters, and donors since BEFORE Iowa when all saw Obama moving up in the polls. It will never happen and Hill and Bill are for whatever reason tied to him. Of all the people who have caused her to be in this position he is at the top of the list.

dk,

One final thought on the flyers which came to mind after I hit submit.

The nastiest stuff from both campaigns has been the flyers they mail out to voters. The Obama health care mailer has already been discussed here. Hillary was helped tremendously by a vicious mailer in NH that questioned Obama's commitment to a woman's right to choose. It was a completely dishonest representation of his record in Illinois. For some former Hillary supporters, it was their litmus test. The Youtube by the former head of Illinois NOW was just such a person
Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&eurl=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Process_and_character.html

I mention this not as a tit for tat exercise, but as evidence that the direct mail wars are the dirtiest part of the campaign.

swarty,

It was both the image and the substance of the attacks. But even more, it was the straw that broke the camel's back for me in terms of Obama's adoptation of high broderism. The implications of the attack is that it encourages to the mainstream the right wing meme that health care reform equals some bogey monster that is socialism. What this does is frame the debate so that no meaningful healthcare reform will take place. Now there is no way that Obama will have the political capital to lead on health care reform, because even if he tried, his own words will be thrown back at him. For the sake of trying to win a few votes he has damaged the fight for health care reform, which is the cornerstone of any meaningful change in domestic economic policy.

It is the same as his legitimization of homophobia. For a few votes in South Carolina, he said he welcomed people on his campaign stage who believe that gay people are not human beings deserving basic dignity. He has compromised core Democratic values to win support, and that I just cannot abide.

And, as a side note, you yourself have to see how incongruous it is that you declare your absolute unwillingness to vote for Hillary over her comment, yet you bend over backwards and sideways to excuse Obama for adopting clear Republican talking points.

Bringing up McClurken is the thinnest of thin gruel. Obama's positions on gay equality are second to none. That's a cheap shot, in my book. If Hillary wants to attach herself to Bill's administration, then prepare to defend DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, real actual policies that adversely affect gays (really they affect us all, straight and gay) in this country, not some singer who was at a rally. There's symbolism and then there's symbolism.

As for bending over backwards, I am holding the statements out of the candidates own mouths as the gold standard in my litmus tests.

Finally as for the health care mailer, I have already conceded your point that his mailer was not good. But to leap to the conclusion that he will have no political capital to make changes to the health care system in this country is grasping at straws. It would be like me saying Hillary would have no clout because she failed so miserably on her first try in 93. Not a true statement either. The truth is that to have meaningful reform, we need more democrats in Congress. We have that opportunity this year. We both can agree on that.

I can’t claim to really know Senator Clinton, although I am an Arkansas native. As such, I have many thoughts on their years in the statehouse as well as the White House. I was interested in your statement that you know her to be an honorable person. That sentence struck me because it was so similar to the thoughts Keith Olbermann expressed in his “Special Comment” about the tenor of her campaign.

Yet with all the talk about the Senator’s honor, I have yet to see much evidence of it. She’s been shrill, unkind, sarcastic and less than truthful. She appears wrapped in a cloak of entitlement, and just barely controls her fury that this "upstart" Obama may win the nomination. Her staff at times has been utterly repellent. At first she made me sad and disappointed. These days she just makes me angry. And completely devoted to Obama.

Obama had a homophobic bigot on a campaign stage getting votes for him in South Carolina. People voted for Obama because he said it was important to have that point of view represented in his campaign. I wonder if he would want someone campaigning for him who believed that slavery for black people was a legitimate part of the national discussion about race. Somehow, and rightly so, I doubt it.

That, not any pretty speeches with his preacher voice talking condescendingly about gay "brothers and sisters" (I am gay, and believe me I don't want or need Obama as a brother, I just want the same rights as any other American, thank you very much) is a position. Do you think that's how a Democrat who believed in progressive values should behave?

Perhaps you are too young to remember, but Don't Ask Don't Tell was shoved down our throats by Colin Powell and Sam Nunn (a Democratic Senator from Georgia). The alternative would have been to not even allow closeted gays in the armed forces. Making ahistorical arguments against Clinton betray you.

If high broderism is your vision for the Democratic party, I can understand your support for Obama. I just know that in my life I have refused to vote for Democrats only twice. Once was for Joe Lieberman, and the second time was for Dianne Feinstein. Sadly, Obama is very much in the mold of these two (and Obama turned to Lieberman as a mentor, and supported him against Lamont). It's a sad point for the Democratic party, though it is encouraging that the majority of actual Democrats (as opposed to Independents and Republicans) aren't falling for it.

Just a note of correction. Jesse Jackson Jr. stated both the night of and the day after, that Obama lost New Hampshire due to the so called 'Bradley Effect', while several other Obama supporters put it a bit more crudely - they told the pollsters the were for Obama, but when they closed the voting curtain, the voted for the white person. CNN showed several segments about this. Interestingly enough, the polls said Obama would get 37% +\- error margin of polls, and guess what, he got 37%. So it is an accepted fact among political historians that the Obama campaign first injected race into the primaries. So blame the Clintons all you want, but history (and the news clips) say you are wrong.

As for the Ferraro comment, she was just repeating (albeit rather poorly) Obama's statement from 2005.

"Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?"

This is from an article by Jeff Zeleny of the Chicago Tribune, printed on Sunday, June 26, 2005.

Rather a bit of hypocrisy from Obama and his not very bright minions to attack her.

Finally, just something to think about. It you look at the distribution of Blacks in the US, the majority still live in the South. Most of these states will vote republican. Only New York (15.8%), Deleware (19.2%) and Maryland (27.9%) of the states the democrats really need to win have more than 15% Black populations. And in many of the states, democrats win with a larger margin of victory than the % of Black votes to total votes ratio. Blacks if not now, they soon will be only the third largest group in the US, and while the Asians are somewhere between 5 - 10 % of total population, there numbers are growing faster than the Black population. They also tend to vote more (higher %) than the three larger groups.

Also, estimating how many Black voters will not vote if Clinton is the nominee has been all over the place, but most polling data shows around 25%. (I will admit these polls are a week or two out of date and I have not seen updated numbers, so this may be no longer valid.)

So the democrats need to worry more about White , Hispanic and Asian voters than black voters for the long term future of the party, And with an Obama supporter writing an opinion column claiming Asians were racist because the voted for Clinton 3:1 in California, Obama should worry a bit about how few votes he will get from this bloc.

In conclusion, if the Black voters are going to be upset if Clinton gets the nomination, I say who cares. They can stay home and let McCain win, or vote for Clinton and beat McCain.

PS - someone show tell the Obama campaign staff that the motto is supposed to be: "Politics of Change" - they seem to think it is "Politics of