Groundhog Day

Hey, I made that Groundhog's Day analogy first, in my comment on Karen's blog. Plagiarism! No wonder you're backing Obama.

But at least I didn't include that tacking "fall in love" comment. You can claim that one, at least.

The O'Bonger camp has just released this response to the loss of Pennsylvania (not unlike the losses in Ohio, California, Nevada, New York, Florida, Michigan, and other less important states) to Senator Shiksa, er Clixon, uh Hipplery:

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO MUNCIE, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GARY, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO FAYETTEVILLE, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO KITTY HAWK, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GITMO, AND THEN WE'RE GOING BACK TO FAYETTEVILLE, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE REVEREND WRONG IN FOR AN STD EXAM, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO CHARLOTTE TO WATCH THE AIRPLANES IN THE BIG AIRPORT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE PROUD OF AMERICAN AIRLINES FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE TUESDAY, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AYERSHEAD AMERICA IN FOR AN SDS EXAM, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO WHINE ABOUT HAVING TO LIVE ON $500,000 A YEAR WITH KIDS IN TOW, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SOME WAFFLE HOUSE AND NOT ACTUALLY EACH MUCH WAFFLES, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO BOWLING AND SHOOT FOR A WHOPPING 53 THIS TIME BY ALLAH, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET BITTER ABOUT GETTING BITTER, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO READ ABOUT GRANDPA WHEN HE SERVED IN PATTON'S ARMY MAYBE WHO KNOWS WHO KNEW THAT'S AS CLOSE TO MILITARY SERVICE AS I'VE BEEN SINCE BUYING POT OUTSIDE PEARL HARBOR, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO THE BATHROOM, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GREENSBORO, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO JEFFERSONVILLE...

No matter. She still can´t catch him. That deal was sealed with Obamas three-delegate WIN in....yes, TEXAS!

It would be outrageous for the democratic party to not give the noimation to the candidate with the most delegates awarded by the public.

Outrageous indeed.

My my, what a quandry our poor demonuts are in now. Hillary has exceeded the popular vote, when you include both her wins in Florida and Michigan. The "Messiah" has many problems to overcome before he can at last be annoited by George Soros and the hatchet crew from MoveOn.Org.

It speaks volumes, when voters acknowledge when someone is speaking out of BOTH sides of his mouth. First claiming racial neutrality, "can't we all just get along", and then slamming people with BITTER, TYPICAL WHITE, and CLING".

People of the great US of A understand, and Pennsylvania as I predicted have finally voiced their concern with a man who has extremely poor judgment and his CHARACTER IS FLAWED.

Obama is "Just Words" and JUST ANOTHER TYPICAL POLITICIAN!!

Amen

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for AMERICA!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, swede99. This is supposed to be the scenario the superdelegates exist to deal with. This is the point where they are supposed to step up and stop the bleeding. If they can't do it, the party should get rid of them, in the round of reforms that will follow this election, as it does following any closely contested nomination process. That's because the nominating process has multiple, conflicting objectives. The conflicts are exposed in close races. I wrote up stuff about what those are here.)

If they can't step up by May 12 at the latest, then they've done more harm than good. Without them, we'd have an untainted, very close delegate count race which would be exciting and would provide an unambiguous result with some risk to party unity. With them, we have all these other metrics being thrown around and the possibility of reducing rather than enhancing the legitimacy of the nominee, doing nothing to enhance party unity. It's time for them to act, or fold up their tents.

And, even so, I think you still want to think about getting rid of them. They do seem to have done more harm than good in the kind of race they were invented for.

One could argue, I suppose, that the rules were also meant to help someone like Clinton, a party insider, take out an insurgent in the lead, as Obama arguably is. It's pretty clear, at this point, that if that was the idea, it doesn't work in practice.

using cnn'S delegate counter tool, I don't see anyway HRC can make a claim to stay in the race. If you give hillary big 63-37% wins in states like ky and wva and 10 pt victories in guam, puerto rico and indiana and then just splitting the vote 50/50 after that...she is still well behind. split the supers 50/50 and obama tops 2025. I used conservative estimates for obama (does anyone think they will split oregon 50/50...hell no) and rather aggressive wins for her in other states...she still cant win. i do not understand her rationale for staying in the race. fla and michigan are not going to be seated in any manner that will give her a great advantage and if the DNC steals this from Obama, well they can kiss the general good by for many many cycles because they will lose the african american vote. (it may never come back)...

Parts of Obama's speech last night sounded like it could have been written by one of Swampland's commenters complaining about trivial reporting:

These Americans cast their ballot for the same reason you came here tonight... because we believe that the challenges we face are bigger than the smallness of our politics...

After fourteen long months, it's easy to forget this from time to time - to lose sight of the fierce urgency of this moment. It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics; the bickering that none of us are immune to, and that trivializes the profound issues - two wars, an economy in recession, a planet in peril.

But that kind of politics is not why we're here. It's not why I'm here and it's not why you're here...

We're not here to talk about change for change's sake, but because our families, our communities, and our country desperately need it. We're here because we can't afford to keep doing what we've been doing for another four years. We can't afford to play the same Washington games with the same Washington players and expect a different result. Not this time. Not now.

JJ
you are right about that speech. it seemed for the first time since the whole wright debacle Obama was back on message. this should serve him well in indiana. it is a conservative state steeped in religion but Obama's message of it is time to change the way we go about this and his anti-washington insider message should serve him well there.

Oh Lordy, I can see McCain's new line now, "The people have spoken. Yes, they want change. Change in their pockets! Tax cuts forever!"
And four years from now, people will realize they made a mistake but considering we are at war with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to re-elect the old man.

Yes.... I can see Jay why the concept of DEMOCRACY and people actually getting to vote would be disturbing to the press. You guys are really, really tired of covering this race. Well, too damn bad.

The people in the next nine states deserve to have their voices heard whether the NYT, Obama supporters or anyone else thinks they should or not.

Well it's getting pretty hard to picture how she would win in a non-ugly way. She could win in all the rest of the primaries by 35 points and still lose the delegate count:

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

Of course she could get the party elite superdels to overturn the will of the voters. But that wouldn't be pretty.

Teresa, you can sit there and complain about Obama supporters, but you know that if Clinton had the lead in delegate count as Obama did she would be screaming up and down the country that he should drop out of the race and get every single super delegate to pressure him to leave.

Even then, when you do the math based on the Dem party primary process as cbhenderson and J.J point the only way she can win is again go to superdelegates to overturn the primary results to date.

How does this make her a leader? How does this maker her a real challenge to McCain. She'll lose so many in the General Election who become once again delusioned with politics as usual. Her base is the same base as McCain's and she doesn't exactly have the largest of leads when you looking at polling of these folks. Obama has brought in a new broad swath of voters that even by making some inroads into Clinton's base he can clearly dominate McCain in the election.

But based on her numbers, she just doesn't have anything to offer. So complain all you want, you take this as an Obama wingnut, but if she were to receive the nomination, her chances in the general are at best 50-50 with McCain - how sad is that?

TeresaK--

But after they've expressed their votes, the outcome will be unchanged. I will grant you that the process is flawed, but it is designed to to stop the bloody battling in a hopeless cause.

I'll also grant you that the presence of the superdelegates has done much more harm than good, and that they should go. But this is the process w have. And if there is no path to the nomination for Clinton, and she won't concede, in exchange, of course, for something, then the superdelegates really are supposed to speak.

Those nine states are not just holding these primaries and caucuses to send delegates to the national convention. They are also using them for enhancing party organization and the selection of delegates to the national convention, where work will be done on things like....reforming the nomination process.

Recognizing that Clinton has no path to the nomination, and needs to figure out what she wants in return for her concession (no easy matter; Bush took the VP slot in exchange, but I don't Clinton wants that), is where her campaign should be at.

If there is nothing that she will take in return for recognizing that this is over, then the superdelegates need to start public endorsements en masse.

She'll lose so many in the General Election who become once again delusioned with politics as usual. Her base is the same base as McCain's and she doesn't exactly have the largest of leads when you looking at polling of these folks.

This isn't fair. She would, I think, win easily over McCain, and I do not think Obama voters would stay home. One reason she won't quit, IMO, is that this is her one shot, and it's the best opportunity Dems have had in an open Presidential contest in the post-war era.

Frankly, I think Obama supporters should be showing sympathy for people who have worked very hard for a very fine candidate, rather than tearing that candidate down. Follow Obama's example.

She'll lose so many in the General Election who become once again delusioned with politics as usual. Her base is the same base as McCain's and she doesn't exactly have the largest of leads when you looking at polling of these folks.

This isn't fair. She would, I think, win easily over McCain, and I do not think Obama voters would stay home. One reason she won't quit, IMO, is that this is her one shot, and it's the best opportunity Dems have had in an open Presidential contest in the post-war era.

Frankly, I think Obama supporters should be showing sympathy for people who have worked very hard for a very fine candidate, rather than tearing that candidate down. Follow Obama's example.

It’s a bit of a no show isn’t it? Drawing fake lines in the sand and claiming they are this or that. Not a real fight. More like a bit of glove slapping across the face. I am not sure whether any of the three candidates actually offers anything substantially different. Even those who fell out were not extreme left or extreme left. Just a nudge to the one side or the other. Less Rumble in the Jungle more Wrestlemania. A little bit of fireworks and a laser display. But a show none the less. http://angryafrican.net/2008/04/22/storm-in-a-teacup/

jayackroyd, I can appreciate the sentiment. But the disaffection she creates in alot of people is based on comments like hers on Iran. If she were the nominee, I'm sorry, but there is too much in her 'experience' that really, she is the lesser of two evils. Old line politics at any and all costs, a willingness to use force - ahem she did vote for the war, and up until this primary season she had been all for large trade agreements. Recent folks have tried to describer her and Obama as incredibly similar in policies, but actually there are aspects of her experience that points to similarities with the GOP.

I agree with cbhenderson about the delegate count. It's all but impossible for Clinton to win by popular vote-- even plugging in absurdly, implausibly Hillary-friendly results, she loses overall. Yesterday's win was like the Dolphins winning in OT last year. (OK, it wasn't that bad, she's not going 1-15, but she is, um, 7-8 and not playoff-bound).

So she has to rely on the superdelegates. So she has to tarnish Obama by running ads like this in majority-white areas in Pennsylvania. It's her only card.

Barring a heart attack or some kind of hideous gaffe on Obama's part, she's done. That's her whole reason to hang around, is to hope one of those two things happens.

All she's doing in the meantime is driving up the negatives of the Democratic nominee.

But hey, it's not like there's anything at stake in November's election or anything. So Hillary, Hillary, uber alles!

Matt Yglesias just posted this:

"At this point, we know what we need to know. We know the policy differences between the candidates, we know the "freak show" issues surrounding the candidates, we know the basic shape of each candidate's core electoral coalition, and we know that in the end Obama will have a modest but real lead in elected delegates. Everyone should declare."
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/good_for_henry.php

I agree.

Maybe somebody in Indiana can explain to the rest of us what to expect in two weeks. Is Indiana going to behave like Ohio and PA or more like Iowa and Wisconsin? And what kind of message from Obama will resonate there? Last night's speech sounded too "lofty and inspiring" and could use more "meat and potatoes" even if that's not his style.

As to the Times editorial...I'm not an HRC supporter but they slammed her pretty hard considering she did walk away with a substantial victory after all.

YMM

She is well to the left of McCain on military matters. And not that far to the right of Obama.

Both of them were dragged to the mainstream, anti-occupation position by the nomination process, and I do not trust either of them to not revert to the Serious People's position of military force as a dominant option.

She would beat McCain handily, not as handily as Obama would, IMO. It does no harm to concede that. Grace in victory is a unifying trait.

At this point I think it's worth looking back to David Brook's "Long Defeat" column from a few weeks ago. Now in my book, it takes a lot of work to make David Brooks look prescient, but I will credit Hillary with a fine effort in that regard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound."

This is Hillary's contribution to the party. Yea Hillary! Let her continue to run, but she should run a respectful campaign, or drop out. And jayackroyd is on the money about the supers stepping in, as well as the need for the party to get rid of the supers for future contests.

Cheeseman Forever, you need to put the Time's slam in proper context. They endorsed her, but now her behavior is horrifying them.

Frankly, that's exactly how her behavior affected me, starting with the Commander in Chief b.s a few months ago. She drove me away, as she appears to be driving the Times away.

Doesn't mean I won't vote for her if she is the nominee. Does mean I'll be holding my nose when I do it. And that is entirely her doing. It is certainly a part of her political calculus that Dems will vote for her regardless of what she does.

But she needs money, and I just made my first donation to Obama. That's another kind of a vote, and she won't get mine.

I do not trust either of them to not revert to the Serious People's position of military force as a dominant option.

You have a talent for understatement. What were her statements about a "defense umbrella" against Iran other than a impassioned plea to be allowed into the Serious People's club?

Jay,
I usually find your posts to be well informed and insightful, even when i disagree with them. having said that i must take exception with your assertion that some are saying she cannot win the delegate count and continuing the fight is bad for the democratic party is somehow tearing her down. Math doesnt lie, (though stats do..) and the math is insurmountable. I havent torn her down yet, but she has given me plenty of reasons to with the negative campaigning the insinuations that somehow she is being treated unfairly, the calling obama an elitist (this is the one that humors me, an elitist black person in america??? we must have different definitions...and also, elite means good right?) bill's continued lying (yesterday's was a new low and as a former bill supporter it broke my heart) the horrible pandering (yes obama does it too, and i hate it from him as well), and worse of all the continued calling of fla and michigan as wins that should count for her...had obama won those states she would have 4000 law suits filed to keep them from counting...hrc will do well to remember that the rules are the rules. if you dont like them, work to change them after the game is over or dont play the game...or should i say, if you cant stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.

Matt Yglesias nails why it is essential to get the Dem process over so they can begin defining McCain. As people have noted here again and again (and Swampland staff keeps working overtime to prove), the press is "hopelessly in the tank for John McCain."

Nearly the whole Yglesias piece is pasted below:

. . . Richard Cohen has a war is peace moment:

"And so it will be the job, the obligation, the solemn task of the next president to restore that trust. John McCain could do it. He's an honorable man who has fudged and ducked and swallowed the truth on occasion—about the acceptability of the Confederate flag, for instance—but always, I think, for understandable although not necessarily admirable reasons."

To be simplistic about this, you're looking here at a press that's hopelessly in the tank for John McCain. To try to be a bit more charitable, you're looking here at a press that's hopelessly invested in the doomed epistemology of character. We can't know what lurks in the hearts of pols, but we can make inferences based on their behavior. But all politicians' behavior is mixed. So we (and by "we" here I mean "Richard Cohen") read that behavior through our preexisting beliefs about their character. And since we "know" that McCain is honorable, he fudges and ducks and swallows etc. for "understandable" reasons, whereas other, lesser politicians are just soulless scumbags. Of course McCain's reasons are understandable -- he wants to win! -- but they're just the same reasons everyone else has. They pander, he's understandable. They lie, he fudges. It's all senseless.

Which is, I suppose, just another way of observing that we're looking at a press corps that's hopelessly in the tank for John McCain.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/cohen_on_mccain_he_can_do_know.php

cbh--

I'm not talking about pointing out the arithmetic, or saying that it is up to superdelegates in the end, so stop the bleeding now.

I'm talking about comments like this from YMM:

She'll lose so many in the General Election who become once again delusioned with politics as usual. Her base is the same base as McCain's and she doesn't exactly have the largest of leads when you looking at polling of these folks.

For me the last straw was adopting Krauthammer's proposal for a nuclear umbrella over NPT non-signatory Israel. There is no way this is in America's interests or enhances American security, and it extends a militarist solution to problems that should be addressed diplomatically.

But that does not make her worse than McCain or working from the same base or unelectable. I won't mention the misogyny that has been all too common in this campaign--not from Obama, but from his supporters.

That's what I mean by tearing down.

It's a somewhat minor point, but since all the new organizations seem to be saying that Clinton needed to match or exceed her 10 point lead over Obama in Ohio to "win", it's somewhat important to note that it's not actually 55-45, it's 54-46. With 99.34% of results in, Obama has 45.7% and Clinton has 54.3%.

I know it's ridiculous, but could we all please stop saying 55-45, when it's actually 54-46?

The MSM needs to update their vote totals.
According to the PA Board of Elections the current to totals are:

Clinton: 1,237,696 54.3%
Obama: 1,043,174 45.7%

Margin: 8.6%

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

D_L

If the rounding error was the difference between 8 and 9 (this Kos diary has it 54.7 to 45.3, for a margin of 9.4%. Of course that rounds to 55-45, a ten point margin.

Same thing really.

Except that 10 is a double digit number and 9 is not. If this were the difference between 8 and 9 or 10 and 11, it wouldn't matter. But because a double digit win is a bigger win than a single digit win, Clinton gets a bigger bump in the headlines.

The margin isn't 10%, it's 8.5%.

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

jay,
oops, my bad...i do agree with the rest of your assessment....and can someone tell ymm the correct word is not delusional it is dissillusioned...sorry to be a word cop ymm...

To be fair, I thought that her Iran answer was what it should have been: She would work to keep Iran from devoloping nukes, but even if they did verifiable have them, she would retaliate, not preemptively strike, and only if Iran makes a nuclear strike against any other Middle East country under America's umbrella, including probably the Saudis, Israel, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, and possibly others. Announcing a policy of detente, with assurances to other Middle Eastern countries is likely the only means to keep those countries from pursuing nukes as a means of "protecting themselves" and clearly preventing nuclear proliferation would and should be a top priority.

Compare that to Obama's we want to keep Iran from getting nukes meandering thing at the debate, followed by a promise to retaliate for Israel with little mention of other countries. I know he had to answer the question first, but clearly she had the better answer at the debate, and she restated it well with KO.

Hillary!
Hillary!

Winning PA is just the beginning.

How do you Obamabots deal?

Time for Obama to bow to the inevitable and ask Hillary to be her VP and thus save the DNC and the election from McSame.

Glad to hear Obama may take the gloves off and give the slime merchant Clinton a little taste of her own medicine. The country obviously isn't ready for an idea based campaign yet, even between those who are supposedly on the same side.

I'm curious what you all think is the reason there appears to be so many more Clinton voters who won't vote for Obama, than Obama voters who won't vote for Clinton - particularly when 20% more of the electorate think she's been negative than think he's been negative.

Is this the entitlement problem? Do a quarter of her voters think Hillary is "owed" this election, and it was unfair of Obama to be in the race? What does it say that more of his voters are prepared to be magnanimous?

JNS: ..the Washington Post has this scoop..

Uh, got a link? The quote you posted sounds more like an outsider's opinion of what's gonna happen rather than what will happen.

If it's true, however, it would probably be about the worst thing that Obama's campaign could do, considering all the noise made about running a different kind of campaign.

Kathy - it is because of the HIllary supporters see Obama for the cult of personality that he is and realizes that the GOP will swiftboat him and thus give us another 4 years of Bush=McSame.

When you deprogram and stop being an obamabot you start to understand...

Just noticed McCain got only 72% in the Republican primary. That's interesting. Of course, there was no reason for your average Republican to even go vote, but interesting nonethelss.

See how Obama and his bots are getting desperate - they are going to replay our beloved Bill Clinton as if they were Ken Star and the republicans. Obama and his bots have no shame and that is why if Obama steals the nomination from Hillary I will not vote for him.

I trust everyone saw Ron Paul's latest campaign commercial: http://alcpac.com/

Time4Tolerance is without question a republican troll but if he or she is a Clintoon supporter all I can say is you wanted a dirty fight so now you are going to get it. Every terrorist you have ever pardoned, every crook you have ever taken money from, or pardoned, and every airhead your husband has had sex with is now fair game.

cbhenderson: no worries, though since Hilary voters have been calling Obama supporters delusional for considering him a 'messiah' or some such title, maybe I posted with tongue in cheek.

Jay, I do appreciate your point, and while yes, we all have a reason to vote for her as the nominee if somehow she were to get it, it doesn't change the fact her campaign has done damage. Let's consider this, if she were the President, how much help will her support provide to candidates to Congress in the next election? She may edge out McCain for the presidency, but will she have the popular perception of herself and presidency that will help the Dems expand their reach into Congress. Or could she in fact win, but still be so negatively perceived that it makes it difficult for Dems in critical states they are trying to take from the GOP.

Anyway, I didn't want to suggest that in the end it was worthless to vote for her. It just pains me to watch the damage she is causing with complete disregard beyond her candidacy.

First of all I resent the use of the term "Obamabot". This reinforces the impression that Obama's supporters are brainless cult followers. This does not bear out in practice. Obama has led among college-educated voters, and commands an even higher lead among those with post-graduate degrees. Let's at least concede that a lot of people who support Obama do it out of some reason other than the hoopla surrounding the candidate. Maybe they love him for the same reasons that the "lunch bucket" voters cannot stand: his detached intellectualism and ability to shed ideological baggage when looking at problems, and willingness to concede that those who disagree with him might have a point.

There is another false impression prevailing in the comments here that Obama voters are full of hate against Hillary Clinton. This is again something that is not borne out by facts. A much larger percentage of Hillary supporters in PA for example indicated that they will not be voting for Obama should he be the Democratic nominee. Why do they hate Obama so much? I don't know. But let's not pretend that the Obama camp is the camp of hatemongers.

The WaPo story about Obama "taking the gloves off" was speculative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042203424.html?hpid=topnews

I too think it would be a bad decision for him to stoop to Clinton's level on this, but having an ad or two with quotes from staunch Dems like Robert Reich and bill Richardson talking about how disheartened they are by Clinton's tactics might be a very effective way counter the slime machine.

You wish I was a part of operation chaos don't you obamabot Derek.

Did obama tell you that?

Maybe instead I am, as I always have been a loyal democrat who is tired of seeing your Obama and the obamabots handing the election to mcsame on a silver platter.

Shame on you people. Do you really think Hillary is afraid of you Obamabots fighting dirty? She survived the VRWC and everything the repukes have ever thrown at her.

What has your precious Obama survived? One non-softball question by Charles Gibson?

This was going to be an easy win for us but you people may cost Hillary her Presidency and doom us to 4 more years of Bush.

Hopefully he won't be going too negative, but based on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/politics/23obama.html?hp

I think this is the best strategy for him, focus on McCain, begin defining him and his policies and then Obama can distinguish himself to the electorate at large. If he focuses on that, he can simply disregard Clinton's negativity and rise above it. Seems the smart way to go.

No one is pretending anything MNINJ - once one steps away from the cult of personality that is Obama one sees the truth.

Go over to the blogs on the political ticker on CNN.com and see the brillant musings of the Obama supporters and tell me that they are nothing but OBAMABOTS caught up in a cult of personality and unable to think for themselves.

I resent that the Obamabots have taken what should have been a slam dunk for the DNC in 08 and now have given McSame and therefore Bush a chance...

a Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama campaign said aides are likely...

That's one vague attribution. The phrasing doesn't even quite rule out that it was said by someone from the Clinton campaign. And the "likely" phrasing doesn't rule out that it is pure speculation, rather than based on deliberations of the Obama campaign.

The "different kind of campaign" schtick from Obama was always hooey.

He had already planned, reluctantly, to go very negative against Bobby Rush in their congressional race in IL but had to put a stop to that idea when Rush's son was shot and eventually died (the dirt was about Rush's being a bad father). Obama was behind in the polls and was resorting to nasty tactics.

So, it's not a novel thing for Obama contemplate sliming someone when push comes to shove.

Whitewater and impeachment would be really dumb angles to pursue, even for McCain in the general (in the event Clinton is the nominee) let alone in the Democratic primary. The impeachment was pretty unpopular and Ken Starr's multi-year, highly aggressive investigation never found any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater transaction.

Southern Bell - exactly. But don't say it too loud or the obamabots will be offended...

Posted by Jay Newton-Small April 23, 2008 2:24:

...a lot of Democrats are getting nervous that the race is dragging too long and it could start to hurt the party. Like Bill Murray, they want out of the time loop, and maybe, like Murray (and I realize I'm probably pushing this analogy past its limits here) they just need to fall in love.

Jay Newton-Small:

Who exactly are "a lot of Democrats"? Do you have polling data with which to support characterizations such as "a lot" or "nervous" or even "fall in love" (especially in this ugly economic period)?
Which Democrats do you mean: party regulars or voters, and in which state(s)?

Not to be offensive, but quite frankly this sounds like regurgitated conventional wisdom dressed up in facile, cutesy, dead-tree Time-style pop-culture-ism.
Please give us at least some hard evidence (besides "a lot of Democrats") that you aren't just being David Brooks-ian and telling us how you feel about the situation. If you are letting us know how you (and your professional cohort) perceive this stage of the primary process (Remember? Bill Murray was a television reporter in the wonderful film "Ground-hog Day"), that's fine. Just let us know that it's you folks, and not some unnamed, unsourced, unverifiable "Democrats".

Thank you so much for reading this, Jay Newton-Small.

About 45 minutes ago the folks on my local PBS station were seriously talking about 9.4 percent differential rounding to double digits as of major significance.

lol

The iron law that all spelling and grammar corrections must themselves contain an error strikes again.

dissillusioned...sorry to be a word cop ymm...

I almost did correct it silently when I pasted it ((sic)ing is rude in this medium, IMO), but he could have meant "delusional" or "disillusioned," or may have been purposely trying to convey both senses.

Now, where is the spelling misteak in my comment......

No one is pretending anything MNINJ - once one steps away from the cult of personality that is Obama one sees the truth.

Go over to the blogs on the political ticker on CNN.com and see the brillant musings of the Obama supporters and tell me that they are nothing but OBAMABOTS caught up in a cult of personality and unable to think for themselves.

I resent that the Obamabots have taken what should have been a slam dunk for the DNC in 08 and now have given McSame and therefore Bush a chance...
--------
If blogs and websites were a measure, Obama would have won Pennsylvania by a land slide. You are looking at a certain section of the electorate. Exit polls out of Pennsylvania count a lot more than a survey of websites.

I am an "Obamabot". There are a number of reasons why I support him, but a song on youtube is not one of them.

"…spelling misteak…"

Well done, jay! (Urgh…)

a Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama campaign

I'm guessing Mark Penn. Or maybe Zell Miller.

No sane people hold Whitewater and the impeachment against the Clintons.

Since someone posted Paul's new campaign ad, I thought it'd only be fair to post Mike Gravel's new crazy @$$ acid trip video. It so bad it makes John McCain's cloud video look good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA2LgJviH9w

Don't bother watching the whole thing, skip to 2:33 when Gravel starts singing. I can't believe he's running for the LP nomination now.

Libertarians used to be cool. Really. :(

Seizing on Her Primary Win, Clinton Says Tide Is Turning
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/politics/23cnd-campaign.html?hp

ugh...as if...

Okay, I'm getting pretty tired of this. I don't go around insulting Clinton supporters. I don't go around insulting HRC. Yet I am constantly being slammed as a programmed moron. Just what is it that makes HRC supporters so derogatory towards everyone else? I think it's this attitude, more than anything, that continuously makes me turn away from her. I could write more, but I don't want to become like some of HRC's more ugly supporters here. I just suggest they remember this: if by some stretch of the imagination that even the best fantasy writer would have trouble creating she should steal the nomination, you're still going to need my vote in November. And I don't respond kindly to insults.

Obama's use of negative under-the-radar fliers and his lack of comment about his supporters ugly attacks on HRC on blogs and websites show Obama has always been willing to play nasty and rough.

Derek had it right upthread. America is not ready for an idea-based campaign. Now, if Obama goes negative, THAT will be the story.

It has been clear for some time that Hillary can only be the nominee if she destroys Obama. Even if she does not succeed this year, she will damage him enough that McCain will win in November. Then, in her warped thinking, she will say "I told you he couldn't win." Then, she thinks she will get another chance in 2012. It will not happen, but who will tell her?

STD-- I decided the best way deal with the iron law is to give into it. Be the willow, not the ;oak.

johnr--

The way a gracious winner deals with a sore loser is graciously. And I think you'll find that most of the obamabot comments are coming from trolls, not Clinton supporters.

Leave it to the Democratic Party to f-up the political equivalent of a free lunch. Let's just start the pool now: How far will Pops McBush be into his first term before he starts another war?

What is about Democrats that they prefer winning or losing on principle? Is this a preference among the more educated ones? The blind support for Obama and the mindless hatred for Clinton is really dispiriting.

We have two able candidates fighting it out. We have intemperate supporters on both sides going at one another as if beating a Democrat is more important than beating a Republican.

If Clinton wants to fight to the end that's okay. There is nothing in the rules that say she cannot. If Obama wins then the onus is on Clinton to accept the decision and support Obama. This can only happen if the victor and the loser accept the outcome.

It seems that the people who are going to weigh down their candidate are those who think harsh criticism is a substitute for a good debate. Saying nasty things about Bill and his sex life may be self satisfying. But there are still folks out there who like Bill.

The real opposition is busy collecting all this muck to throw back at our candidate after the conventions. Why are we so gleefully providing the ammo?

JNS:
"Somewhere in Pennsylvania there’s a groundhog chuckling evilly in his den. The Keystone State...was not decisive in the race to be the Democratic nominee...

... The Obama campaign line emerging from Pennsylvania ... is that nothing has changed."

"Hey, I made that Groundhog's Day analogy first, in my comment on Karen's blog. ...Posted by Malcolm "

It's nice when everyone agrees. Of course, I'd prefer not knowing JNS' opinion, what with her pretending to be a "journalist" and all.

...and PS - the entire Obama campaign has been based on the dredging up the right wing's pseudo-scandals of the Clinton presidency, so how is this announcement news?

Jay,

Yes, notice that my pun was intended, should have said so. The miSTEAK is well done. Ha, ha! I know it's weak, but I'm grasping for levity here.

Southern Bell-- I don't think the blogosphere's support of Obama reflects much on the candidate himself. That support was reluctant at first, partly because of the fliers you mentioned. Most of them supported Edwards. But then Clinton started getting friendly with the Freak Show and feeding nasty right wing talking points usable in the GE, and meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife. Penn started feeding people brain-dead lines of BS and expecting the public to swallow it. It starts to make people wonder why they spent all these years defending her.

johnr - obamabots do as obamabots are.

You need to do what is right and help Hillary save us from McSame. If you go on clinging to Obama once Hillary is nominated at the convention (and this thing is going to the convention) then you are as much a supporter of McLame as a repug. The lies against Hillary must stop and the Obamabots need to understand that only by becoming VP to HIllary can Obama truly help the DNC defeat McSame.

All the Obamabots in here keep on crying in their lattes this morning and console themselves that Hillary's WIN was only 8.5% instead of 10% - like it matters.

Obamabots - Hillary is in it to win it.

Obamabots - Hillary will not quit because you want her to.

Obamabots - Hillary has enough delegates to deserve to go to the convention and there let it be decided.

Obamabots - it is up to you to join our winning team and help us defeat McSame once we get to the convention.

Obamabots - if you fail to do so McSame wins and it will be all your fault.

Obamabots - there is life outside of your little cult of personality, there is Hillary!

(waiting for the Obamabot in chief to come and call me a parody troll!)

J.J., I'm a proud member of Dailykos. From the beginning there were a group of Obama supporters who kept up a steady stream of negative posts about HRC.

Actually, I was very torn between supporting Edwards and HRC (I knew my fantasy candidate, Elizabeth Edwards, would never be able to run)but was always open to Obama. I will of course vote for Obama in November. But I have never and doubt if I ever will get why he's considered so special.

@jayackroyd. Thanks, you are probably correct. It's just so damn hard to ignore the trolls sometimes. But I must do better.

From the Page - THANK YOU HALPERIN!

How big was Senator Clinton’s Keystone State win, and why is the media obsessed with double digits?

Pennsylvania Secretary of State: 9.2 point difference

Other news orgs: 10 point difference

Tribune: “‘Double-digit’ win? Not exactly”

"I'm curious what you all think is the reason there appears to be so many more Clinton voters who won't vote for Obama, than Obama voters who won't vote for Clinton - particularly when 20% more of the electorate think she's been negative than think he's been negative.

Is this the entitlement problem? Do a quarter of her voters think Hillary is "owed" this election, and it was unfair of Obama to be in the race? What does it say that more of his voters are prepared to be magnanimous?"

KathyR, of course I'll support Obama in November, but I can understand where some of these Clinton supporters are coming from. I think that most Clinton supporters feel that Obama has been hypocritical, and the media hasn't called him on it, and that's just really irritating. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I do find hypocrisy one of the most irritating qualities in a person. And the 49% and 67% figures (if I remember them correctly) on Obama's and Clinton's negativity probably mean that a lot of Clinton supporters feel that both of them have been negative. But Clinton has been much more criticized for doing the same things that Obama is doing, by both the media and the Obama campaign (their strategy seems to be to say that anything you may not like about them is Clinton's fault, because she made them do it), and the double standard is, again, really irritating.

I also think that some if it is racism, or - to be more precise - the gap between Obama's and Clinton's success in meeting the insane double standard they both face. As I've said before, if she had been spending her Sundays for 20 years with a radical feminist she would be having the same kind of problems Obama is dealing with. And if she had made the bitter/cling comments it would have been a much bigger deal; A female candidate could never criticize gun-owners. So I think it is inaccurate to simply look at the sexism and racism they are currently facing among voters, and say that either racism or sexism is the bigger problem. They both face a double standard, and Clinton has been doing a better job of meeting it. That probably reflects her greater experience; She learned from her failure to meet that double standard in the 90s.

Anyway, going after the Impeachment is not going to help any of this. That's a sure-fire way to lose female support, especially if McCain is clever enough to choose a female VP. And I certainly don't mean to suggest that any of these Clinton supporters - or Obama supporters - are being reasonable when they say they won't vote for their candidate's opponent. I even disagree with Obama's comment about McCain being better than Bush. But if Obama is going to win in November he needs to look realistically at why he's alienating a lot of Democrats. She needs to do the same thing. And yes, a lot of it is simple racism and sexism. But there are other things, like his hypocrisy, and her lack of an inspiring message that can appeal to Obama supporters (Her inspiring message is that she is withstanding the Obama campaign's media and financial onslaught, and for obvious reasons that doesn't appeal to his supporters).

I fear that if Obama doesn't combine his increased negativity with a decrease in his "I'm here to change politics, and Hillary's horrible attacks are responsible for my failure to do that in this campaign," rhetoric, he will just alienate more Clinton supporters.

Southern Bell, I too would have loved to see Elizabeth Edwards run.

"...the profound issues - two wars, an economy in recession, a planet in peril..."

After I get the possums out from under the doublewide I'll expound on why this lame tame leftist jackass ISn't worth the beef jerky he wastes whenever he doesn't finish a decent American meal, but as a preview you can stick your libcorp eco-fuel world news now starvation scheme in your hemp bong for a long, ugly smoke, while further pondering the knee stained disasters that either of the DNC economic and military policy dunces would reek if somehow selected in November.

Mind you, these are the same clowns that were screaming about minorities not getting enough easy mega APR loans 10 years ago, and have the cachet to say today that those loans were irresponsible.

Mind you, these were the same clowns that insisted Saddam was a clear and present danger to world peace and allied security, but now fail to mention that he was in fact a flaming terrorist only a Hamas thug attending a new HABITAT FOR HEZBOLLAH opening with Jiminy Crater could love.

Mind you, these are the same clowns that weakly highlight every single mental defective entering tough military service from Cumberland County as proof positive that the flag officers diss the stop lossed (read the contract before signing) troops, but now can't make the connection between alleged vet suicides and the fact that 99.9% of the behavior problems come from their state-owned Guard units -- that should have been merged into the regulars say about 200 years ago.

Mind you, these are the same clowns that partied til 1999 on Monica's keen watch of Osama and Bill Boy's keen watch of Global Screwup, but today believe that issuing tooth brightener and tight slacks will reveal a kinder, gentler Iran that won't nuke Jihad Joe Klein's cousins in Tel Aviv faster than you can say EARMARK at a John Murtha Mall of Amnesia cart on Labor Day Weekend.

Mind you, these are the same clowns running the illegal Streamlined Internet Sales Tax scheme up the bittererest yokel local failure and hope for loose change flag pin, but still insist that definitely maybe boycotting the Red Chinese Pollution Olympics will at least be as effective in Darfur as it was against the Soviets in Swaziland.

Mind you, these are the same clowns blaming No Child Left Behind for No Unions To Merge At Church, but yet again insist that gun control in DC takes nothing away from the human shooting ranges in Philadelphia and Detroit -- that will kill more Americans in the next 6 months than we'll lose in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in the next 6 YEARS.

Mind you, these are the same clowns insisting that All IS Well with ALF-CIO thuggery busting down the doors of U.S. industry, while they hang tight with the Edwardsesque trial lawyers that would just as soon sue as find an actual solution to an actual problem, or an actual criminal in their California bar association.

Mind you, these are the same race baiting clowns that ignore minority and lady GOP membership in Louisiana and Maine and the 43 team, but are willing to fantasize about fictitious church burnings and NATO flights and Kennedy connections when the International ANSWER suits them.

Did I mention I have to fix the holes under the long paid up free and clear doublebarrell defended trailer today?

= SUMMER FLIP FLOPS ACCOMPLISHED, ECO-SOLDIERS =

I would have voted for Elizabeth Edwards. (Maybe she's been smart enough not to get into the elected office racket herself.)

Great post, Rose.

I don't see HRC as Margot Channing and Obama as Eve Harrington; HRC isn't owed this nomination.

Obama was the one who started the electability talk, he's the one who focused on HRC's negatives and made the arrogant statement that his supporters wouldn't vote for her. Add that to his "you're likable enough" comment and some bad feelings started to erupt.

But I'll still vote for the guy.

Southern Bell-

Being in Texas, I was sure that I would not have a say in who the nominee was because our primary was in March. Obviously, I was wrong about that. But, after Edwards flamed out, my choice became: who can beat McCain? The answer was, and is easy. HRC would bring out the lizard brains in record numbers; her negatives would prevent her from ever being President. I know it was not fair to her, but I want a Democrat in the White House next year. My calculus has been muddled somewhat by Obama's failure to win large numbers of blue-collar, urban, Catholic voters. Are many of HRC's supporters racist, since more of her voters would not support him than vice versa? Is that the 800-pound gorilla in the room?

kathy asked why so many hrc supporters wont vote for obama if he is the candidate? it is because so many of her supporters are old women and nobody holds a grudge longer than an old woman...ask any married man.

ok, so obviously that was a joke....dont castrate me

This has definitely been some interesting couple of months. I think the developments surrounding Obama and his questionable affiliates, and the insight into his true character have been very enlightening indeed. As I have stated several times, he talks a good game but, has no achievements to show other than getting elected to the senate. Which was really more like he sashayed in given the race and the sex scandals he basically was the lesser of two evils. So this is the first time he has really been tested.

I am sure he could have a wonderful career as a motivational speaker, but just like those speakers he says a lot without doing a thing. I guess he could be a teacher because those who can't ... teach. I could tell you that I could cure cancer but, without some credible evidence of my past achievements would you believe it? Would you give me billions to cure it?

I think this is exactly why Hillary is still hanging around in this election. People still believe that the time she spent in the white house gave her osmosis experience. Which maybe it did but, then why would she not release the documents from the Clinton Library to prove it. So far all we really have to look forward to is 750 billion dollars in spending. At least that is what her campaign has promised.

She throws around billions in her speeches like it is a dollar. Lets just put that in perspective because we hear billion thrown around do much these days.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no creature walked the earth on two feet.
And a billion dollars lasts 8 hours and 20 minutes at the rate our Government spends it.

Think about that next time you hear billion.

As for the argument of Super delegates, I feel that is it is all part and parcel of the Elitest attitude the democrates have. They feel their consituents are not informed enough to make their own decisions so they have to have people to vote for them, that count more than the populas. They do need to get rid of super delegates. It has shown itself to be woefully inept at doing what it was intended for and at this point could cost them the election by letting this slug fest continue. Not to mention that if Hillary actually does win she becomes what all democrates hate most...George Bush.

"...why so many hrc supporters wont vote for obama if he is the candidate? it is because so many of her supporters are old women and nobody holds a grudge longer than an old woman..."

OUCH.

THE TRUTH HURTS.

Signed,

Ted Kennedy's spotty liver

oh god, kill me now...whether i was making a joke or not...question hillary agreed with me...i think i just threw up in my mouth

"A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no creature walked the earth on two feet.
And a billion dollars lasts 8 hours and 20 minutes at the rate our Government spends it."

How many lib earmarks IS that come to?

A billion here, a billion there?

Pretty soon you're talking about bailing out Illinois again.

oh god, kill me now...whether i was making a joke or not...question hillary agreed with me...i think i just threw up in my mouth

judgement,
why is elitist a bad thing?? dont you want someone smarter than you (or me) in that job?? shouldn't elitism be strived for? havent we had enough of the backyard beerswillers who man the weekend grill in this job?? isnt it time for a tru intellectual to try and tackle the complex problems we have?? where is today's FDR or thomas jefferson

How does 9.2 round up to 10?

As David Frum pointed out, the GOP has made itself sick with anti-elitism at this point:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=169952

"...dont you want someone smarter than you (or me) in that job??"

Been there.

Done that.

Called Carter & Clinton.

We got 9-11 as a DIRECT result of their absolute, adulterated STUPIDITY.

No, thanks.

Keep the change.

TomInTheSwamp-- Those numbers are apparently out of date:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/190799.php

Proposed...

KEEP THE CHANGE. VOTE MCCAIN.

You read IS here first, libsquats.

...

"...question hillary agreed with me...i think i just threw up in my mouth..."

And stop picking on Monica!

Called Carter & Clinton.

Wow, QH, you mean they were the ones who got the memo titled "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US?" They were the ones who ignored Sandy Berger's briefing that the biggest problem Bush would face would be terrorism?

The Obama supporters here keep talking about how Hillary can not win enough delegates to win the nomination.... well, guess what? Neither can Obama. Both will need superdelegates to secure the nomination because neither will have enough pledged delegates to win.

If Hillary can get to the convention and has won the popular vote and all the big states, then I think she has a perfectly legitimate argument to getting the nomination.

Hillary's plan to win the White House using states like Ohio, Florida, etc... is a proven plan. Obama's math is new and is asking us to take a chance on states like Colorado and New Mexico to make up for losing Florida and Ohio. That is a big chance to take.

I also think many of you who are "new" to politics and who like Obama because he promises to "unite" the country, discount how angry some of us are after eight years of George Bush. I'd like to see Bush, Rove and company frog marched out the door in handcuffs. I have ZERO inclination to be "united" with Republicans after the War, Gitmo, torture, Katrina, etc...etc... Does that make me an angry, bitter old woman? I guess so.

I like Hillary because -- other than the war -- she has the same voting record as Obama, but she seems to have the guts to get up and fight after she has been knocked down. I can't imagine how she keeps going after all the GOP and the media has put her through over the years. Maybe some of you see that as a sign of self centeredness, I see it as the kind of toughness one needs to take on the GOP. And I think a lot of working class folks think so too...

"Okay, I'm getting pretty tired of this. I don't go around insulting Clinton supporters. I don't go around insulting HRC. Yet I am constantly being slammed as a programmed moron. Just what is it that makes HRC supporters so derogatory towards everyone else? I think it's this attitude, more than anything, that continuously makes me turn away from her. I could write more, but I don't want to become like some of HRC's more ugly supporters here. I just suggest they remember this: if by some stretch of the imagination that even the best fantasy writer would have trouble creating she should steal the nomination, you're still going to need my vote in November. And I don't respond kindly to insults."

If you do not respond to bullying and insult "transcendent" is not the way they will describe you. They will describe you as weak and give you the name coward. No one wants a coward for president.

Besides, going negative is about as easy as cutting taxes. It takes no real serious effort. Finding a way to pay for government programs might be a problem, but cutting taxes is easy.

The flavor of the season seems to be "guilt by association." All you have to do is put Clinton in the same room as a terrorist, or a communist, and she becomes a terrorist too. I'm following the Clintooniac methods here. Clinton and McCain have both tried to paint Obama as communist or terrorist recently.

Obama has to respond to the constant stream of insults coming out of the DLC/Clinton camp or the Left will abandon him, in my opinion. We barely like him as it is. If he wants to use Biblical teaching as his model he should hit her back about 10 times harder.

Relax my friends, one state doth not a primary make. http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=12&ElectionID=27

54.6 to 45.4 is a 9.2% point victory. It is less than double digits, and for the HRC campaign, that is a wash. It merely expresses how the vote broke down and permits her to go till another date certain. In delegate terms, it means almost nothing...what 15 or 17 delegates net. In overall popular vote, a little over 200,000. It is now all but impossible for HRC to catch up in pledged delegates or popular vote count.

Florida and Michigan cannot be redone reliably and ensure that the voters of those states are not jeopardized for a general election and in a way that doesn't penalize an earlier independent voter and benefit a later registered voter. They simply cannot count if one is honest about fundamental fairness of process.

So, this leads to the long slow slog. Continue to make $5, $10, $25 donations, phone calls, or canvas Indiana and NC to get out the vote. I really believe a huge double digit blowout of HRC in NC is effectively a death knell. It alone could erase the gains she made in PA. At that point, given a close result in Indiana....go encourage everyone to pull out their delegate calculators. In fact, populate the web with them....everywhere.

You see, HRC wants everyone to 'feel' that she is better and 'feel' that something is wrong with Obama since he can't close the deal. This is called meta-framing. It is something that the Republicans and anybody that wants to slant an argument does to win when they are faced with untenable reality. The real reality is that it is HRC who couldn't close the deal in Iowa and then after New Hampshire- twice the number of states went to Barack Obama. More people voted for Barack Obama (add in Florida at the end of all primaries, if you like). He has more delegates, and delegates is the method by which the Democratic party chooses his nominee. It has nothing to do with 'feelings.' The last time we trusted someone's 'feelings' we got a 2nd war, $120 a barrel oil and a housing crisis...from the likes of the Great Depression. Don't trust your 'feelings'. Moral victories don't count, delegates do. That is the meta-frame that should be employed.

The untenable reality for HRC is not just the math. It is that HRC wants to abandon the rules of primary scheduling, accept the rules that offer a benefit and reject the rules that impose a disadvantage, and finally, and this is the truth, her attempt to get superdelegates to vote for her in spite of her opponent having the popular vote (add in Florida vote count, if you like) is antithetical to her arguments against George W. and what happened in Florida in the metaphysical "smoke-filled rooms." It is everything that the Democratic party stands against. For those that argue that Clinton was good before, a Clinton will be good again....they are not bitter...they are sadly looking for a nuclear weapon to end a situation where all we can do is fire the first shot.

No president, Barack included, is going to undo overnight or even in 8 years what Bush / McCain (would continue to do) has done to this country. This is simply true. We won't get oil prices back down, housing prices back up, jobs resourced, or the dollar back from the depths. There is a long hard slog ahead. These are tough times and more trouble is ahead, but a new day is coming and Barack is bringing a change. Even in the midst of this storn, we can see a rainbow and the promise of better days ahead. Keep soldiering on.

If there is anything to be learned, let's start to change the meta-frame. The only thing that counts is delegates. Yes, we can.

Rose - as always, I appreciate the time you take to respond. Yes, lots of people thought they were both negative.

I want to respond to this comment of yours: And if she had made the bitter/cling comments it would have been a much bigger deal;" She did make a comment about the Southern equivalent of the "bitter" demographic, reported in Huff Post, when she say "screw em" in response to Bill. We heard about it, but not day after day for 2 weeks. So my take as an Obama supporter is that she gets a pass on many of these things, because we're so used to them from the Clintons, and we're unsure about Barack and want to explore this stuff.