It's Getting Close to Over

Until the nominating fight ends, Mr. Obama said, he is “trying to show some restraint.” He added, “I won’t have as much restraint with the Republicans."

This certainly qualifies as an underreported angle. I'm hesitant to draw it as a distiction between Obama and Clinton, but it does seem to me that he is more respectful of the need to not let the primary sully the Democratic brand.

Please God I hope you're right - but I'm afraid the Pennsylvania voters aren't thinking toward the endgame the way the superdelegates are. One very salient question that didn't get asked at the debate, considering how many of the questions were political, was how Hillary expects to win the nomination. I bet the average voter just now tuning in doesn't know about The Math.

Joe Klein writes:
There is still the possibility that if Clinton really blows out Obama in Pennsylvania--a twenty point win, say--there will be some second thoughts. And this is not to say that Democrats are entirely thrilled with a candidate who has such obvious difficulties getting white middle class people to vote for him. But there is a growing sense that the bleeding needs to be staunched. If he's to be the nominee, Obama needs to start putting together his general election campaign now--and start responding to the character attacks in a way that won't be restrained by his desire not to offend fellow Democrats. My guess is that the superdelegate tidal wave is about to begin.

The polls say:
Rasmussen 04/14 - 04/14741 LV5041Clinton +9.0
SurveyUSA04/12 - 04/14638 LV5440Clinton +14.0

The average Clinton climb since the "debate" is 4 percentage points, good try Joe!!!

The Wall Street Journal says:
The Pennsylvania polls haven't registered a post-"bitter" Obama dive, but his momentum has stalled. And while Mrs. Clinton has no greater prospect of catching him in pledged delegates than she did a week ago, a respectable win provides her with plenty of rationale to keep with it. Even Mr. Obama appears to have acknowledged this new reality, telling supporters yesterday that he now hoped to wrap things up in May. Maybe.

Let the Fat Lady start singing!!! This race will go to June. (all the better for McCain).

- He's given Mrs. Clinton fresh superdelegate ammunition. The crux of the Clinton "electability" pitch is that Mr. Obama can't win the white, working-class Democrats the party needs to gain the Oval Office. In Ohio, she trounced him 3-to-1 among white voters without a college degree – a group that made up half the electorate.

How do you spell relief??? R-O-L-I-A-D-S

"Philadelphia debate may have been the last straw for the Democratic Party"
Heh- could you clean that up a little?
Maybe add "fight for the nomination"?

How do you spell relief??? R-O-L-I-A-D-S

I spell it R-O-L-A-I-D-S. Not R-O-L-I-A-D-S.

Following Patrick Healy in the NYT you are now pitching in with the " Time to Bow Out" pitch to Hillary. Shouldn't we wait until the Penn vote? The story about SuperDelegates seems to go from one side to the other: let the primaries end, this must stop because we are bleeding, Hillary attacked Obama Republican-style etc, etc.

Joe: what is your role in this? Do you want Hillary out so Obama can concentrate on taking on McCain? Are you now vested in this race?

If SuperDelegates feel they can short circuit the process then what about the voters? Will Mass SuperDelegates reflect the will of their voters: what have Kerry and Deval have to say?

This is the same line that the ABC Twins took: they want to illuminate things. More like adding a healthy dose of fog.

And don't you think some of Hillary's supporters will be pissed off at the putsch?

This is not as easy as it looks. I am concerned too. But I would hope that the SuperDelegates would talk directly to Clinton and sort this out: in the open.They should be concerned about what is best for the Democratic party and its supporters first and foremost. Talking to journalists is the worst way to set about it. The journalists can't help slanting the stuff to suit their point or position.

Sorry Cookie Puss, but its meant to reflect the MILLIONS Obama has spent in Pennsylvania in his feeble attempts to "attract" votes in his ADS. Thus..........ROLL THE ADS. The more he spends now, the less he has this fall trying to beat up on poor Hillary!!!

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for America

Rustydog: You're more entertaining after 6pm ET. These AM rants aren't your best work. Does the medication start to wear off late in the day or something?

After her attempts to imply Obama gave Farrakhan a "stamp of approval", to giulianize 9/11 through some garbled connection to a hippie radical from 1968, I just want this odious woman to go away forever.

This is a close to a point I was making, yesterday, that Obama was fighting with one arm tied behind his back in an effort to not needlessly alienate Hillary's voters for November. Unfortunately, with Hillary going as negatively as she has, he has to respond more forcefully. He has been running more negative ads in PA, and I think it's not playing as well for him to get down in the mud.

KathyR, you may be correct in your assessment of what's going on here in PA, and (I did check out the link to you posted in the thread for KTs post, so thanks). With the polls being so wild, all anyone can do is get out an vote (and canvas, which I'll be doing most of Monday and Tuesday).

After her attempts to imply Obama gave Farrakhan a "stamp of approval", to giulianize 9/11 through some garbled connection to a hippie radical from 1968, I just want this odious woman to go away forever. Posted by Jim, Foolish Literalist | April 18, 2008 10:26 AM

Trinity UCC has awarded Louis Farrakhan with "humanitarian of the year" awards. I think Hillary is just in her implications of Obama's associations with extremists, both Muslim and Weathermen Underground.

Who do YOU want to elect as your next President? Barak Obama: Passive sympathizer of Muslim Extremists and Anti-American insane men like Rev Wright and William Ayers???

OR

Hillary Clinton: "Well I am sorry I LIED about the sniper fire in Bosnia".

We report, YOU decide!!!

I think it's more troubling to see the disdain the elite punditry show for your average American. And by average American, I'm referring to actual real life, living, breathing people and the troubles that they experience on an everyday basis, not the caricature of Middle America created by types like David Broder, Ann Coulter, and Charlie Gibson, who think that everyday folks are out there earning $200,000 a year and worrying about the capital gains tax.

Joe Klein - You may want to saunter over to Karen Tumulty's cubicle and commiserate a little bit over her recent article. She bought the conservative line lock, stock and barrel.

There has been no effect of Obama's bitter/cling comments; there is no Bittergate. What there has been is a preview of the type of demagoguery that only conservatives engage in and they engage in it because they are never challenged by our media 'watchdogs'.

They will sidle up to you and whisper that "he's not like you", "he thinks he's better than you". Of course, it is meaningless as to whether he is like me or whether he thinks he is better than me - conservatives only do this because they are trying to separate voters from the only politicians that are trying to make their lives better.

And with Barack Obama we are going to see conservatives whispering far worse things than what I have described and they will do it unchallenged and they will do it right in front of you. And why will that happen? It will happen because Democrats like you are too afraid of appearing like something instead of putting on your big-boy pants and standing up to shout them down.

And this is off topic, but worth noting: Those dirty hippies at the Pentagon have a very different view of the war in Iraq than cheerleaders like John McCain have set forth. Wonder if we'll get any coverage, questioning whether McCain is out of touch with reality. Doubt it.

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead. Iraqi civilian deaths--mostly at the hands of other Iraqis--may number as high as 82,000. Over 7,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have also been killed. Fifteen percent of the Iraqi population has become refugees or displaced persons. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the United States now spends over $10 billion per month on the war, and that the total, direct U.S. costs from March 2003 to July 2007 have exceeded $450 billion, all of which has been covered by deficit spending. No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on Service personnel and materiel."

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

The one time I hope Joe is right.

Rusty - you are citing old data. There is a new Rasmussen Poll out today and guess what:

PA POLL: Hillary 47 (-3), Obama 44 (+3)

Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary
Pennsylvania: Clinton 47% Obama 44%
Friday, April 18, 2008

The Democratic Presidential Primary in Pennsylvania is getting even closer. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Hillary Clinton with 47% of the vote and Barack Obama with 44%. This election poll was conducted Thursday night, the night following a nationally televised debate between the candidates. Last Monday, Clinton was leading Obama 50% to 41%.

-snip-
Perhaps the worst news in the survey for Clinton has nothing to do with the race getting closer. Fifty-seven percent (57%) say that the Superdelegates should honor the results of the primaries even if “something happens to convince Superdelegates that Hillary Clinton would have a better chance of beating John McCain.” If Clinton is deemed more electable, just 33% believe that the Superdelegates should select her over Obama. Clinton’s only viable path to the nomination is to convince the Superdelegates that they should vote for her despite Obama’s edge among pledged delegates.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

I know SOME Clinton supporters have problems with math but please ....

JK: I woke up this morning with a gut feeling that the Philadelphia debate may have been the last straw for the Democratic Party..

Yup. Enough already.

I believe that analysis like this in the Wall Street Journal is precisely wrong.

Like much of everything else you find in the Journal's Op/Ed pages.

There is still the possibility that if Clinton really blows out Obama in Pennsylvania--a twenty point win, say--there will be some second thoughts.

Yup. But even a five-point win over Obama gives Clinton the incentive to continue; it would really make no sense for Clinton to throw in the towel after winning PA, would it?

My guess is that the superdelegate tidal wave is about to begin.

Unfortunately, it's about the only thing that would convince Clinton to suspend her candidacy.

So, let's see if I have this right. Democratic super delegates realize that Obama put his foot in his mouth but they're convinced Republicans wouldn't have noticed if not for Clinton pointing it out? Obama says he'll show less restraint when Republicans attack him? How's that work? What exactly is the counter to Republican attacks that he's not using now? He's going to sick Wolf Blitzer on them? Are there really Democrats in senior positions who believe that? Our reputation for never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity is well deserved. Obama is made of teflon right now but there are voters out there who will in fact be frightened into voting for McCain with the right stimulus. Nominating Obama assumes Republicans aren't going to find an attack that works. I don't know but that seems like a risky strategy. Republicans are not very good at governing but they are fabulous at scaring voters in flyover country.

grape_crush:
Unfortunately, it's about the only thing that would convince Clinton to suspend her candidacy.

I don't know. Even if Al Gore was to turn around and offer his support to Obama, I still think she would come around and say "I'm in it for the people, I must fight on." She really is only focused on winning at any cost. I've said it before, as much as I didn't want her for Senator of my state, I've come to respect her and appreciate her in that role. After this primary, when she comes up for re-election here, NO WAY IN HELL will she get my vote.

She just doesn't realize the damage she's doing to herself after the last few years when she was a good Senator.

Oh and that WSJ drivel, god, do they even live in this country, how frigging clueless...

More from those hippy peaceniks at the Pentagon:

"Our status as a moral leader has been damaged by the war, the subsequent occupation of a Muslim nation, and various issues concerning the treatment of detainees. At the same time, operations in Iraq have had a negative impact on all other efforts in the war on terror, which must bow to the priority of Iraq when it comes to manpower, materiel, and the attention of decisionmakers. Our Armed Forces-- especially the Army and Marine Corps--have been severely strained by the war in Iraq. Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East."

ny nick: So, let's see if I have this right.

Um, nope. You don't have it right. Try again.

Nominating Obama assumes Republicans aren't going to find an attack that works.

Still no; keep trying.

Republicans are not very good at governing but they are fabulous at scaring voters in flyover country.

Hey, you got something right, Nick! Now tell me how the Repubs aren't gonna fear- and smearmonger people in 'flyover country' if Clinton gets the nomination.

Robert Reich is going to endorse Obama today.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/heilemann_robert_reich_to_endo.html

The central quote:

"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

Dean is calling on the superdels to start deciding:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/dean_i_want_supers_to_announce.php

Finally, Joe Klein is right. It's time to get this over with and let Obama take on the inevitable - but ultimately toothless, I absolutely assure you - attacks about WrightRezkoAyersFarrakhanMillionManMarch DriversLicensesForIllegalAliens HelpingMexicoPushTheirAgenda EndlessLiesAndMisleadingStatements and ObamaMiddleFingerGate, my friends. As Chairman Dean says, they need to decide now so they can move on to glorious victory, my friends.

g_crush,

They are definitely going to do that to her too but the Clintons are a lot better at schooling Republicans than Obama is. There is a lot of irrationality to the Obama ascendency. He can be cut down in ways that they can't easily do to Hillary. She's been a constant target of their smears for over a decade. Obama can't say that. When you build your campaign on themes like "Hope" and "post racial", you better have a record to fall back on. Obama doesn't.

They are definitely going to do that to her too but the Clintons are a lot better at schooling Republicans than Obama is.

Oh yeah. Beating Bob Dole. Losing a forty-year majority in both houses of congress. Getting impeached... but not convicted! Beating the political titan Rick Lazio in one of the most Democratic states in the country. Givign George W. Bush the "returning honor and dignity to the White House" line to run on. Supporting Bush's war.

The Clintons is the mightiestest dragon slayers evah!

God, I certainly hope so. And not a second too soon.

One can hope that this is the end for the Clintons. She can go back and be a senator, and he can return to his foundation work where he was actually doing some good in the world.

And I can finally get some sleep and stop obsessing about this nonsense.

The silver lining to this is that the extended primary gave Obama a chance to build his organization in additional states. He needed to do that anyway.

ny nick,

If Clinton is so vetted then why are things like the Tuzla fabrication and Penn's involvement in Colombian free trade just coming out. It doesn't matter how much her life has been picked over previously if she will look in the camera and lie today. No amount of vetting in the 90s will help her if Bill goes out next week and works as a rainmaker for organizations opposed to her policies. The vetting argument is actually the weakest of her many weak arguments.

YMM: Even if Al Gore was to turn around and offer his support to Obama, I still think she would come around and say "I'm in it for the people, I must fight on."

Nah. I don't think Clinton's delusional; only that she wants to be President very, very badly. If things keep going somewhat poorly for her as they have been, she'll start getting plenty of 'come-to-Jesus' type calls and meetings.

After this primary, when she comes up for re-election here, NO WAY IN HELL will she get my vote.

That's your decision, but Clinton hasn't been an awful Senator.

She just doesn't realize the damage she's doing to herself after the last few years when she was a good Senator.

Clinton has gone a ways in confirming some of the right-wing's negative framing of her, yes...but she knew that she had image problems when she announced her candidacy. Problem is that Clinton hasn't overcome those perceptions as she wanted to do.

SuperTD: thanks for giving the Robt Reich quote. I wonder if anyone's compiled a list of former Clinton appointees supporting Obama (now that would have been a good debate question). And bless you for Monday and Tuesday.

grape_crush
Nah. I don't think Clinton's delusional; only that she wants to be President very, very badly. If things keep going somewhat poorly for her as they have been, she'll start getting plenty of 'come-to-Jesus' type calls and meetings.

I really hope so, because there's no doubt that her attacks are hurting the Dems all around.

Clinton has gone a ways in confirming some of the right-wing's negative framing of her, yes...but she knew that she had image problems when she announced her candidacy. Problem is that Clinton hasn't overcome those perceptions as she wanted to do.

Well that's basically my point. When she came to NY, it wasn't us downstaters (NYC and the immediate surrounding counties) that voted for her overwhelming. What she did, and she has made this point, is reached out to the upstaters, predominately Blue-Coller, GOP favoring voters, she convinced them and won. With alot of what she has been doing, she's hurt her image such that I don't think she'll have as much support with upstaters let alone with downstaters. But that's just my 2 cents.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) say that the Superdelegates should honor the results of the primaries even if “something happens to convince Superdelegates that Hillary Clinton would have a better chance of beating John McCain.”

Why don't superdelegates have to honor the results of the primaries in their states?

But there is a growing sense that the bleeding needs to be staunched. If he's to be the nominee, Obama needs to start putting together his general election campaign now--and start responding to the character attacks in a way that won't be restrained by his desire not to offend fellow Democrats.

As I said in another post, I was amazed that Obama was so tongue-tied when he responded to obvious questions. Just one example to the flag pin c*ap as noted by Dick Polman of the Phila Inq.

His response: "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander in chief..."

Instead of answering straightforwardly, Obama lied.

Contrast his statement last night with what he said on Oct. 3, 2007, when a TV reporter in Iowa asked why he wasn't wearing a flag pin: "You know, the truth is that, right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that (pin) became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is (about) speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

Apparently, he decided last night that a truthful response would not be a sufficient pander; either that or he was too rattled to remember what he had once said. The bottom line, however, is that he had a golden opportunity to demonstrate the idiocy of this phony issue. He could have simply said this:

John McCain doesn't even wear a flag pin. In fact, when eight Republican candidates debated last autumn, seven of them did not wear flag pins.

Dick Polman's American Debate

That October response should drop easily from his lips whenever the flag junk is brought up and it is brought up over and over by the right. What that kind of thing made me wonder is if he is not going to be able to take silver tongue John in a debate.

Rustydog,
Didn't your local FFA (fascists for America) have a meeting this morning???
regarding Trinity UCC. this is the church my children were baptized in, I was married in, everyone in my family was married in. More than anything they preach tolerance. I think jesus might have mentioned that somewhere. Because of the tolerance preaching you are allowed leeway to make your opinions heard. The Rev. Wright stating that america is responsible for extreme suffering throughout the world is a true statement. if you didnt like how he said it, well...learn to move past semantics and see the broader picture. would i have preferred he used a different set of words, sure...but his point is still valid. the abuse dished out to the trinity ucc has to be the funniest byproduct of this ridiculous primary season. trinity ucc is one of the most christian of sects in this country. feeding the poor, daycare for the needy's children, headstart, clothing drives for the needy....i guess if you don't belong to a fundamentalist church that raises millions and treats its preachersz like rock stars (and just how would jesus feel about that) than it is ok to marginalize. And before you rail against me for trying to protect my church and being territorial...I am a devout atheist, i think all of it is goofy, from genesis on...but i do appreciate a christian group that behaves in a christlike manner.

ny nick: They are definitely going to do that to her too but the Clintons are a lot better at schooling Republicans than Obama is.

Evidence?

There is a lot of irrationality to the Obama ascendency.

A somewhat popular, mildly populist, somewhat inspirational politician running for the Presidency is 'irrational'...

He can be cut down in ways that they can't easily do to Hillary.

If you mean that Hillary can't be called a black nationalist Muslim, then I guess you are right, Nick.

She's been a constant target of their smears for over a decade. Obama can't say that.

I don't buy the 'still standing' argument, Nick. If anything, all that undeserved villification has made the Clinton campaign start off 'in the hole' in terms of public opinion. Clinton starting off supposedly pre-smeared versus Obama supposedly not having been exposed to right-wing attacks is pretty much a wash.

When you build your campaign on themes like "Hope" and "post racial", you better have a record to fall back on. Obama doesn't.

Less to attack, right?...

..And if you are basing your campaign on themes of 'experience' and being 'tested', you'd - one - better actually have that experience and - two - that experience shows you in a positive light.

Zogby still shows Obama behind by only 5 points in PA and that's after the debate. Clinton's RCP average lead is down to 5.6. I think it will end after Indiana and North Carolina. Also, note that Robert Reich will endorse Obama and his reasoning seems to the same one that Superdelegates might be using today.http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/heilemann_robert_reich_to_endo.html

Sorry, tried to follow grapecrush's instructions for hidden link posting and messed up. Here is the link to the whole article which he reposted to realclear politics. (This version spares you some of the really loopy commenters.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obama_shaken_rattled_and_rolle.html

YMM But that's just my 2 cents.

Entirely valid, YMM. If Clinton faces a tough opponent in the next race for her Senate seat (someone along the lines of a Michael Bloomberg), yeah, she'll have problems.

Look, I get it. I know Obama fans don't like to hear anything negative about their guy, just like I don't like to hear the attacks on the Clintons but if you really believe your guy is this super terrific transcendant candidate, he should win no matter what right? If that's the case, then why expend so much energy destroying the Clintons? Maybe he is going to win. I can't say for sure. If he's so great then none of this will matter and he'll sail through to November. I just think Obama and his loyal following ought to recognize the weaknesses in their armor and do something about it other than bringing out the racial boogey man and complaining about your opponent's tactics. None of that is going to work once it's Dem vs Republican. There is an assumption that if only Hillary would quit, the world would be conflict free and all of Obama's weaknesses would disappear. I think that's delusional.
Slaying the Hillary dragon has become the goal for a lot of you. I'm sure that's fun and all but the end result is a weak candidate who can't win the states he needs to win in a general election.

Here ya go, ivb and anyone else:

<a href='www.time-blog.com/swampland'>Time Magazine's Swampland blog.</a>

displays as:

Time Magazine's Swampland blog.

Helps with the longer URLs..You just gotta remember to enclose the site address - including the http:// part in quotes.

The Fat Lady has been singing...and singing...and singing. And I'm sick of it. Hillary has nothing positive or new to say. Her negative and not very intelligent attacks have dumbed down the media, which hardly needed dumbing down.

She's a closet Victim of the first order. A true whiner in stateswoman's clothing. Projects her weaknesses on Obama ad nauseum, which you'd think she'd be embarrassed about...if she was more self-aware she would be, surely.

And the media doesn't seem to be able to rise to freshman-level objective journalism.

Great God amighty, let's all get free at last, free at last of this suddenly-pointless carnival and get to the general campaign before everybody tunes out from sheer exhaustion.

Maybe that the SuperDelegates are looking at SUSA's numbers might explain the "delay" in shutting down the democratic process while there's still millions of voters left to participate, Joe:

Posted at MyDD (of course)

Massachusetts:

Clinton 56
McCain 41

Obama 48
McCain 46

New Mexico:

Clinton 46
McCain 49

Obama 44
McCain 50

Missouri:

Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 42
McCain 50

New York:

Clinton 55
McCain 39

Obama 52
McCain 43

Ohio:

Clinton 53
McCain 42

Obama 45
McCain 47

Oregon:

Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 51
McCain 42

Virginia:

Clinton 39
McCain 55

Obama 44
McCain 52

Minnesota:

Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 49
McCain 43

Wisconsin:

Clinton 46
McCain 46

Obama 49
McCain 44

Kansas:

Clinton 36
McCain 57

Obama 37
McCain 54

Alabama:

Clinton 34
McCain 60

Obama 32
McCain 64

California:

Clinton 53
McCain 40

Obama 50
McCain 43

Iowa:

Clinton 42
McCain 48

Obama 49
McCain 42

Kentucky:

Clinton 46
McCain 48

Obama 29
McCain 63

But there is a growing sense that the bleeding needs to be staunched.

Love that passive voice, Joe. Can't you just come out and say "I, for one, am getting very concerned, and I know of many others who share the same worry"? Do you have to be this crass and manipulative? How very Brooks of you...

The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.

Klein and Brooks, the passive voice Gemini, somehow just know that the SuperDelegates agree with them--er, ahem...agree with the "growing sense" of an unnamed, unpolled, mysterious-yet-important majority of somebody with which these two geniuses are somehow strangely intimate.

We're not idiots, Joe. Drop the passive voice and just tell us what you really would like to happen, and why--or name names, and quote sources (in a hopefully much more wide and representative sample than a single "senior uncommitted Democrat").

Rustydog, Didn't your local FFA (fascists for America) have a meeting this morning???
regarding Trinity UCC. this is the church my children were baptized in, I was married in, everyone in my family was married in. More than anything they preach tolerance.Posted by cbhenderson | April 18, 2008 12:01 PM

No, but if you think I will fall for a crock full of RACISTS remarks, sorry. Trunity UCC is just a mask for Farrakhan and his henchmen to funnel money.

How about the news on Rev Wright's new digs?? Think he will throw a party in his new "crib" estimated to be worth 10 MILLION dollars?, located in Tenley Park one of the most EXCLUSIVE high-end neighborhoods in Chicago suburbs. Sounds like Jesus is really in good ole Rev Wright's soul no doubt.

OOPS, sorry maybe his poor church goers didn't know that. I'm so glad that this very wealthy church is able to throw out a few scraps to the people surrounding it in South Chicago so that as you said, "trinity ucc is one of the most christian of sects in this country. feeding the poor, daycare for the needy's children, headstart, clothing drives for the needy".

I guess I would be an "atheist" too, if I had to support a church like that.

ny nick: I'm not "out to destroy the Clintons". I want them to stop using divisive, Rovian tactics (and waving the name Farrakan around like a bloody shirt is sub-Atwaterian, not "tough politics").

You think Hillary Clinton (and "the Clintons" aren't running, btw) is the stronger candidate in the general. I think it would be charitable to call this a delusion. She would lose thirty states to John McCain.

You can share Hillary's sense of persecution if it gives you some sort of perverse pleasure, but it only underscores how weak she would be in GE. What goal post moves and rule changes is she going to ask for from McCain? How is whining about misogyny and media bias going to help her win independents?

g-crush writes:

"A somewhat popular, mildly populist, somewhat inspirational politician running for the Presidency is 'irrational'..."

No, that in and of itself isn't irrational. What's irrational is the inability to tolerate the idea that others don't feel the same way about Barack. Inspiration isn't a replacement for competence. Hope won't balance the budget or bring peace to the middle east or get us universal health care. Barack, for all his hope and inspiration, hasn't shown a hint of interest in the process of government. He's been an absentee senator and before that, a state senator who was put in place and advanced by the famous Democratic political machine that's been around since Roosevelt. Before that, he was a community organizer who used those connections to land his state senate job.
Hillary has been around policy for more than thirty years. Her activism isn't the driveby version that Obama practices. She's been an activist for childrens issues and health care policy before she was First Lady, when she was First Lady and afterwards. Her record is that of a policy wonk. Obama's record shows a man who's only real defining concern is the advancement of Barack Obama.

Well it is about time that Hillary give up her selfish and racist campaign and support our next President, Mr. Barak Hussein Obama! President and First Lady Obama are going to be way beyond awesome, much more awesome than Hillary would have been.

Obama will bring the Bush Administration to justice just as he brings the plight of the african american to the light.

. Before that, he was a community organizer who used those connections to land his state senate job.

A Clinton supporter wants to talk about using "connections" to land a senate job....?

As for "competence" and "achievement": She failed on health care in '93, voted for the Iraq war in 2002, showed no leadership or "fight" in the Senate, and lost an "inevitable" primary campaign in 2008.

And Hillary Clinton can't do anymore to advance health care or balancing the budget as a failed presidential candidate in the Senate, hated by half her own party, than she can as a U.S Senator who put the interests of her party and her country before her own.

...of course, adding the 'http://' part in the sample code would help. Should read:

Time Magazine's Swampland blog

.........

ny nick: I know Obama fans don't like to hear anything negative about their guy..

Personally, I don't mind negative, Nick, just negative-and-not-very-well-thought-out-or-just plain-false.

If there's criticism that stands up to scrutiny, fire away.

I just think Obama and his loyal following ought to recognize the weaknesses in their armor and do something about it other than bringing out the racial boogey man and complaining about your opponent's tactics.

Well, that is doing something about it, Nick...And, yes, Obama isn't perfect, perfectly clean, whatever - and even Obama 'fesses up to that...and saying that 'Obama supporters think their candidate is bulletproof' is a gross mischaracterization.

None of that is going to work once it's Dem vs Republican.

Seems to be holding up against Hillary - who is using Repub tactics - fairly well so far.

There is an assumption that if only Hillary would quit, the world would be conflict free and all of Obama's weaknesses would disappear.

No, there isn't. You'd be hard-pressed to show any evidence of that assertion.

I think that's delusional.

No more than the strawman argument you've erected to keep battering away at, Nick.

NY nick: Your rational for experience is that all experience is good experience. This is incorrect to assume. Her experience in these issues is as a blow hard. She is like the loud kid in class who always has opinion even though its basis is on nothing but bs.

We like Obama because he talks about the good he can do, not the bad someone else can do. His campaign for the most part is on the things he wants to change and the hope he has for this country. He is not going around preaching about how Hilary lied about sniper fire because he understands that winning is not everything. Its how you hold yourself. That to me shows he has the character to TALK to other countries not FIGHT with them. I don't care if Hilary can suck down a shot like a sorority girl or if McCain can shoot a gun. I care about intelligence and knowledge and about whether or not the person in the white house can understand the plights that our poor are going through. I am so tired of the USA worrying about the awful things being down to others around the world. I want the USA to worry about the awful things happening to our people here.

grr...Preview stirps out special characters...again:

...of course, adding the 'http://' part in the sample code would help. Should read:

<a href='http://www.time-blog.com/swampland'>Time Magazine's Swampland blog</a>

To me, the most interesting thing about this piece was something left unsaid: whether this "senior uncommitted Democrat--who has pledged not to commit until the nomination fight is over" is a superdelegate or not. If so, then he or she is the very problem that he's whining about. Super delegates could end this thing tomorrow if they would just grow the stones to commit one way or the other. My sense is, like your unnamed senior democrat, most will go with Obama - not only because of The Math, but also because as you note Hillary has just burned a bridge too far - but that they're all afraid of offending Clinton supporters. However, as Dean's remarks yesterday affirmed, Clinton's willingness to go low, now combined with the likes of ABC actively seeking to destroy Obama for the sake of ratings, change the equation. As Dean said, the supers have to decide and declare starting NOW.

like lsu said - Obama is the hope and the light of the future and wants to make the world a better place. I for one cannot wait to help do my part and look forward to contributing more to a just and good government that will take care of all of society.

my mother always told me when you are in an argument and it is clear the other person is ignorant and irrational that you should just change the subject....

hey rustydog, how about that weather today...beautiful eh!

yeah rusty brain. Why don't you send your boy mclame some geritol and let us adults worry about saving america under the leadership of Barak Obama!

stuart,

I appreciate you posting those polls, but it appears to me that obama has the lead over hillary once you eliminate states where the difference between them (or the differencebetween her and mccain) is within the margin of error. I dont understand how this helps HRC's case.

Tenley Park one of the most EXCLUSIVE high-end neighborhoods in Chicago suburbs.

It's called Tinley Park and it's an ugly sprawl of shopping malls and cul-de-sac new construction.

You must be confusing it with Lake Forest.

Or you don't have a clue what your talking about......

i vote for no clue, which is what people who support Hillary or McLame have.

my mother always told me when you are in an argument and it is clear the other person is ignorant and irrational that you should just change the subject....Posted by cbhenderson | April 18, 2008 12:53 PM

Sorry, I am not in an "argument" with you cbhenderson. Why would I even attempt an argument with a complete LUNATIC who supports a candidate who has one agenda and ONE AGENDA ONLY, bring about "change and hope" to all of his MUSLIM buddies (Louis Farrakhan) and FAR LEFT LIBERAL EXTREMISTS (William Ayers).

So Rustydog what you want is an intolerable president who can't take suggestions or advice from all sides and make an intelligent decision?

You already have that. His name is George Bush.

Thanks for your persistence, grape_crush.

Yep the medication has worn off huh Rusty?

So Rustydog what you want is an intolerable president who can't take suggestions or advice from all sides and make an intelligent decision?Posted by lsumarkb | April 18, 2008 1:21 PM

Sure better than the MOST liberal Senator we have in Congress, who is all about making RACIST remarks against people in one breath, then attempts for an "inclusion" speech to "make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside". Someone that has associations with the likes of Rev Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Toney Rezko,and William Ayers.

Yes give me someone with Moderate ideals on the economy, wants to eliminate special interest groups, PORK projects, and wasteful government spending on entitlement programs that never work for those that truly need the assistance. Someone that believes in a free market economy, which if you want to work you can succeed in this country, rather than be dependent on handouts. Someone that has served his country with ultimate distinction, was a POW for many years under a communist country and respects the military men and women fighting for our safety from the muslim jihadist hell bent on destroying every american on earth.

Pretty much a no brainer, but you first have to have a brain to figure out and understand the complexities of our world today.

You are such a shameful racist hater rusty. I am glad that your kind are about to taste defeat at the hands of Barak Obama!

Worth an update, Joe, if you're looking:

Boren and Nunn endorse.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/189918.php

As Josh says, it's interesting that he keeps picking up endorsements from small town states.

In fact, the little people the media elites insist on reading the minds of are not from small towns as much as from rust belt towns. That's who Obama was talking about--blue collar workers in Ohio and PA have nothing to do with folks in Wichita or Omaha.

The problem is that all those things are untrue. For one, McCain doesn't even realize what general is in charge of what theater. And while he wants to take care of wasteful spending on entitlement programs he wants to wastefully spend it on a war for 100 years.

If you want to protect America from "muslim jihadist hell bent on destroying every American on earth", stop trying to be the Roman empire and push your borders too thin. I have no problem with having a diplomatic foreign policy. I have a problem with having a war mongering foreign policy. If we would have spent half of the $3 trillion we spent on the war, on education, we might actually have a decent public education system that would inspire Americans to learn about the world around them instead of committing crimes. We have the largest criminal system in the world.

Instead of worrying about my brain, use the time to worry about yours.

"I woke up this morning and the blues were pouring down like rain"

I believe the correct lyric is 'blues fallin' down like hail', if you love the lyric...get it right.

This is the best news I could have gotten today, and BO will win Penn, I think the debacle/debate had a lot to do w/ this, maybe now members of the cult of the first woman president supporters can heal their psyches and re-join the reality based community...the passive/aggressive behavior is incredibly old now.

Oh, gosh, yes please I hope you're right Joe. Obama is always much sharper and crisper when attacking McCain. It's clear he's holding back on Clinton because she's a fellow Democrat and the Party has asked him too.

Please tell me they'll let him take the gloves off and attack her the same way she attacks him. Please.

Oh, gosh, yes please I hope you're right Joe. Obama is always much sharper and crisper when attacking McCain. It's clear he's holding back on Clinton because she's a fellow Democrat and the Party has asked him too.

But why wasn't he sharp and crisp in his response to the stupid flag pin question, that he surely saw coming? That had nothing to do with his refraining from attacking Hillary.

I am still not certain who I am going to vote for. I hoped the debate would settle it for me and it has only made me less sure.

Actually ivb, The more I read about the debate and on Obama, the more I think he was totally taken off guard with the question. I believe he thought that the stupid questions were over. He even seemed a little frustrated with them asking him. He gives this country more credit then it deserves. WE (As a whole not individually) are uneducated schmucks who walk around like we own the world. We are the bully in the playground.

All right RDog, I'll take the bait. I hardly see how imperialism is a "Moderate" ideal for the economy, and I don't see war as effective, responsible fiscal policy. McCain wanting "to eliminate special interest groups, PORK projects, and wasteful government spending on entitlement programs that never work for those that truly need the assistance." are words right now, we'll see. I don't have much faith in a person that has tried to circumvent campaign financing reforms- that he sponsored. He has served his country admirably as a soldier and a POW, and he deserves respect for that- I give it to him. However, this makes it particularly disturbing to me that backed down to pressure and undermined his principals by choosing not to restrict the CIA's allowable interrogation techniques and merely re-iterating that this agency is bound by the same international law that Bushco interpreted to allow torture. And if he was truly concerned about protecting Americans from jihadis and radicals he would be focusing on the 1 million or so Iraqi refugees living in tents on either side of the Iraqi/Syrian border and the 4.7 million total refugees caused by our invasion/occupation. When you have that many people, many of them children, living without hope, basic necessities, education, jobs relying on humanitarian aid for food, water, shelter and with a singular focus for their anger and hopelessness- the American people that we all want to protect- well, we are considerably less safe in the future.

He wasn't sharp and crisp because: a) that's the type of stupid politics he's trying to get past and judging by the large, overwhelmingly negative response of the American people they agree and b) he doesn't want to hit Hillary because she's a fellow Democrat.

Look we know she's in desparate straits. But what Hillary Clinton has done this past month and a half is really beyond the pale. We've simply NEVER seen a fellow Democrat, or most Republicans for that matter, hit someone in THEIR OWN PARTY this hard. She's effectively trying to destroy him, even if it wins John McCain the presidency so she can have it in 2012. (Her negatives are at 55%, she's unelectable herself, but that's another topic.)

What Hillary's doing isn't done. That's why there's this stunned silence from the Democratic Party, Obama and the media.

She's essentially entered a murder-suicide pact. How are you supposed to respond to that?

I would also, politely posit, that some of the more rabid support from Hillary (from men but yes often older women who are threatening to vote for McCain in the general if they're denied their candidate) has also led him to back off a little.

When some suggested she should do what pretty much every other candidate (yes there are a very few exceptions) and drop out of the race it was called sexist and widely decried. Okay, fine. But then don't ask why he's hesitant about trying to force her out of the race.

Now if she can go back to campaigning like a Democrat rather than a Republican, run all you want. But if she's going to insist on using Rove tactics, on HER OWN PARTY (that's the shocking part) of course her party wants her out. They would anyone who's doing that.

I'm still confused about that lyric - while it's a plausible line, it's not familiar to me, nor to Google. Cincy's suggestion about "blues fallin' down like hail" (Dylan's "Nettie Moore") doesn't fit with the "woke up this morning" part, so I think it's still an open mystery.

What's the source, Joe?

Words & Music by Don Walsh & Rick Walsh

Lyrics

Every night I go to sleep
The blues fall down like rain
Every night I go to sleep
The blues fall down like rain
Taking pills, cheap whiskey
Just to try to ease the pain

performed by the Blues Brothers....

Stew writes:

"Obama is the hope and the light of the future and wants to make the world a better place."

And what exactly does Hillary want to make the world? Please, Obama supporters believe and for them that's enough. Fine. But trust me when I say that there is a large block of voters out there who require more than blind faith. Obama has never shown any ability to reach across a divide and find a solution. I really don't care how pretty he is or articulate he is, I care about solving problems and Obama can't measure up. "Hope" "light of the future", "make the world a better place". George W. Bush has said these words or something very close to them and look where it's gotten us. It's time we try and hire someone who can actually do the job, not someone who looks good on the TV.

both blues lines are correct...but joe, here is a better one..

you sing your song like Siren with the blues...

i unashamedly take credit for that...songwriter is my profession...better than real work!

What interesting posts here. Joe Klein is an Obama lackey from the get-go, so don't ask him to lose his passive voice and just say what he thinks. He doesn't need to. It's his way of trying to be "balanced". All you have to do is read his op-eds every week and watch him on MSNBC and CNN to know his view. Obama can do no wrong, is misunderstood, is so bright that his nuance is not picked up on by regular folks. Baloney.

He was whining like a child the next day at his rally about being ganged up on and asked nasty, pointed questions and having to endure the "Republican-like" attacks from Hillary. Please. I guess after all the softball debates, getting hit by a hardball a few times hurts a lot worse.

Here is your issue as Democrats in the fall. John McCain has actually been the one above this fray - he kind of chimed in on the "Bitter" comment in San Francisco, but left it alone. He has shown time and again, petty politics is not his slant. He is anxious to debate the direction of America and the differences. Substance vs. soundbite.

Obama and Clinton looked absolutely inept the other night talking about withdrawing from Iraq on principle, not on reality. Klein's recent assessment of how deftly Obama handled Petreaus in the Senate hearings was so far from what everyone else saw as to be laughable. Most saw a junior Senator from Illinois, with almost no knowledge of military matters struggle to ask relevant questions. Klein tries to spin that Obama was setting up Crocker with questions, like a chess match, when in reality he just doesn't listen to what Generals on the ground had told him and the panel repeatedly that morning. This is the same guy who a year ago, in his exquisite JUDGMENT, said the surge had no chance of working. Hillary was just suspending disbelief. Both were equally WRONG.

I think I will stick to the candidate as Commander-in-Chief who railed against the handling of the aftermath of the invasion, who took on Rumsfeld early on about it, supported the surge to regain control and listens to his Generals. Better yet, he actually knows what they are talking about.

Can't wait.

"Rove tactics"???

Oh, like calling Bill Clinton a racist? Obama doesn't like to be called on his Bullsh*t. Sorry but these are legitimate issues that will definitely come up again against the Republicans. Look it up. Obama said during his senate campaign that if he was in the senate at the time he's not sure how he would have voted. Why is that racist? He went further and said he and GWB aren't that far apart on the war. Now, even you rabid Obamabots would have to admit that if Hillary went around taking credit for being the true anti war candidate and she said these things during her senate campaign, they would definitely be fair game. Not so for Obama. Bill Clinton became a jackbooted klansman for saying these things. Tell me again about using "Rovian tactics".

Obama is all hat no cattle. I ain't voting for him and I ain't alone. I would rather have a President McCain than a President Obama and I've never cast a vote in my life where the candidate didn't have (D) next to his name.

Ralph, it's a great, great old Robert Johnson song 'Hellhound On My Trail':

I got to keep movin'
I got to keep movin'
Blues fallin' down like hail
Blues fallin' down like hail
Umm mmm mmm mmm
Blues fallin' down like hail
Blues fallin' down like hail
And the days keeps on worryin' me
There's a hellhound on my trail
Hellhound on my trail
Hellhound on my trail

One more comment and then I'm off to happy hour
(some things take precedent). If Obama wants to win the nomination the all he need do is get to 2025 delegates. Is he there yet? No. Can he get there before the convention? No. Isn't that in the rule book? 2025 delegates. When he gets there, I am sure Hillary will reach out her hand in friendship and both Clintons will do whatever they can to help him.

"Oh, like calling Bill Clinton a racist?"

When did Obama call Bill a racist? Or someone on the campaign? Proof please. I need confirmation, go have your drink, don't worry...I'll find you in another thread and ask again....and again....and again, etc., etc.

" She is like the loud kid in class who always has opinion even though its basis is on nothing but bs."

I assume you were at the policy meeting and know this first hand? No? Yeah, the last thing we need is a President who is fully versed and up to date on policy issues. All we need are "hope" and "inspiration". Policy? That's so 1990's...

cincy gets the prize of the day...the prize is..."malted milk"
i keep drinkin malted milk
tryin to drive my blues away...

Chug, chug, chug. YUM!

This Kool-Aid is good!

Change.

Hope.

Yes we can.....

I hope you're getting at least a reach-around from The Precious, Joe!

Stringer writes:

"He wasn't sharp and crisp because: a) that's the type of stupid politics he's trying to get past and judging by the large, overwhelmingly negative response of the American people they agree and b) he doesn't want to hit Hillary because she's a fellow Democrat."

Trying to get past how? Show me an example other than calling his advisary a racist.

Obama cannot point to a single issue that offers proof of his ability to transcend "stupid politics". Not one. Rev. Wright? Sorry, listen to what he says. I wasn't there. I didn't hear it. I reject the comments. I still like him. Bill Clinton said Jesse Jackson, he's a racist! Hey! There's donuts! Show me some proof. We've all lived through eight years of this same double speak.
Bush says stuff you can't disagree with too (freedom!) (Victory!) but there is no evidence he can deliver on any of it. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?

JoeCHI - your racism and homophobia is showing.
Shame on you!

Together we can!
Obama 08!

"Oh, like calling Bill Clinton a racist?"

NY Nick, when did Obama call Bill a racist? Or someone on the campaign? Proof please. I need confirmation, go have your drink, don't worry...I'll find you in another thread and ask again....and again....and again, etc., etc.

joechi,
what is "kool-aid" about wanting to work together as americans and get past the gut-wrenching partisanship of the last 20 years. the only people this is bad for are news pundits, everyone else benefits. we have BIG issues to deal with immediately. When as a country we are so unhealthy that you have people going on reality tv shows to lose weight just to get health insurance, that is a problem. When we are borrowing money from the chinese like a 21 yr old drunk in a gentlemens club and a new credit card (i swear mom i never did that) that is a problem. when the generals in the pentagon are saying our army is nearly broken from this war, that is a problem. when you can take a ship through the northwest passage without an icebreaker for the first time in the history of seamanship, that is a problem. it is going to take some serious cooperation to tackle these issues, and some of these problems are so overwhelming that without hope it would be easier to just go to the bar and piss it all away. so, i will sip the kool aid while trying to take active part in fixing these problems. it may not take a village to raise a child but it is going to take a country to fix these things.

Joe would you call the Harry and Louise and NAFTA mailers Republican-style attacks?

cbhenderson - no, we will fix these things and more under President Obama and we will stop the obstructionist republicans and marginalize them like they deserve to be in our total victory in November and then we will finally be able to solve the problems.

wrong stewie...that is triangulation and that is clintonian...i am old enough to remember when cooperation actually happened in that city by the river...

Cincinnatus,

Since you asked...

www.huffingtonpost.com/_81205.html

Here ya go. Obama doesn't say it, he has his people say it. Ask Ana, ask Joe, ask Karen. They definitely took this meme and ran with it.
You can't have it both ways. If your campaign is doing it on your behalf, you're responsible. Oh, I forgot the first rule of Obama politics.
If he gets caught in a lie or makes a mistake, someone is a racist and it's not his fault.

"Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary. [See the full memo here.]

The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive."

cb - we don't need to triangulate - that is a hillary thing, we need Obama + Dem Congress and we will be unstoppable. There is no problem we won't bne able to fix. Implying that Obama would triangulate smacks of racism.

NY Nick: So what you are saying is that if they have proof of racial insensitivities they should ignore them? I am not sure what you are getting at.

You spew the same BS that HRC's campaign does. I don't care about this trivial crap. I care about the issues: health care, poverty, taxes, foreign policy, economy, and environment. And until I can hear good arguments I will go with the person who preaches change and hope and not "he said - she said" BS.

ny nick, no one called Bill a racist, went to your link, there is NOTHING there. Please provide the quote, from someone's mouth or from any memo in which Bill Clinton is called a racist.

Here's what you wrote, and using the search function of my browser I was unable to find the word 'racist':
"Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary. [See the full memo here.]

The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive."

Isumarkb writes:

"NY Nick: So what you are saying is that if they have proof of racial insensitivities they should ignore them? I am not sure what you are getting at."

Okay. Then explain why it's racist to mention the inconsistencies in Obama's positions visa vis the war? Explain why it's racist to mention that Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary? Those are facts. If Hillary had inconsistencies, you can be damn sure Barack would exploit them. If bringing up a man's record and statements he made while running for the Senate are racist, then the term has lost all meaning.

You care about "change" and "hope" but did it occur to you to examine the man's record for anything remotely indicating his ability to live up to the ideals he talks about?

Still trying to find that quote ny nick?

NY Nick: It's not and for the most part those comments seem pretty harmless to me. The memo was probably not even suppose to get out of the office but someone leaked it.

I wonder how many things are said in other campaign rooms that should never be let out.

My point in all this is that I want the two democrats to not take each other down. I want them debate the issues. I want them to talk about what Americans care about (or should be caring about). Not racial comments, not bitter comments, not lapels with flags on them.

i never said obama would triangulate...but if i had, i am not sure it is racist...be that as it may....

For the record, here's Jesse Jackson Jr., officially of the Obama campaign, telling MSNBC after Hillary's win in New Hampshire that African-Americans in South Carolina had better take a very, very careful look at why Hillary Clinton didn't shed tears for the victims of Katrina --one of the most disgusting, race-baiting moments of this campaign on the part of Obama's surrogates.

One can only assume that this kind of bad faith tactic was what Barack Obama himself was addressing when he said in Nevada during the "race truce" in January:
"If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, then I will speak out forcefully against them, and I hope the other campaigns take the same approach," he said.

"I think that I may disagree with Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards on how to get things done, but we share the same goals. We're all Democrats, we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights," said the senator from Illinois.

"I think they're good people, they are patriots and they are running because they think they can lead this country to a better place, and I don't want the campaign in this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat back-and-forth that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this."

Everyone who thinks Obama is guilty by association because of things that acquaintances of his have said or done should think about Hillary's associations with unsavory characters who have done great harm to this country. She's married to an adulterer who performed lewd sex acts with a cigar on a young employee in one of our nations most cherished houses; this person also signed a trade pact that cost many thousands of American men and women their livelihoods; and, she has a lobbyist on her staff who is actively promoting another trade agreement (with Columbia) that will destroy more American families.

Obama hasn't called her on these relationships, because he doesn't want to further disgrace the Democratic party. I think, however, she's getting a free ride.

She lies straight out, and then she expresses concern about things that Obama's acquaintances have said. Her excuse for the lies is that she was tired. Well if she's that tired in the middle of the morning, then how can we expect her to make a sound decision when the phone rings at 3 a.m.?

The fact is that Obama cannot go hard against clinton. When Edwards and Obama did a mild perceived pile up on her, Clintons supporters were crying sexism and woman hater.
Obama has to go about criticizing and handling Clinton differently and with some trepidation because any time someone critiques Clinton, mildly or even when deserved, the older women who support her see it as woman bashing. They see it as them being criticized or rejected.
Obama will not have the same problem against McCain.

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Klein's prediction on this one. I seem to recall Mr. Klein predicting the same a few months back prior to Texas & Ohio primaries, so his record for predictions hasn't been too good.

Very solid journalist/writer though!

stuart_zechman: for the record, when I told you nobody would ever take StewieZ's act seriously enough to actually engage him in debate, I was wrong. Mea maxima culpa.

If the party disses Hillary before this is over, good luck getting my vote, Barack. I've always voted Democratic (except once, in the 2000 Republican primary, for John McCain), and never not voted. But, boy, will I be tempted to stay home in November. I won't vote for McCain this time; I'm on to his act now. But I'm also on to Barack's. I think he's a phony; he's pretending to be something he's not -- above the muck, rather than right down in it -- and when people find out, they're going to be as disillusioned as I was watching McCain flip flop flip all over the political map. I was SOOOO looking forward to this race. There's nothing I've wanted more in these past 8 years than to be rid of Bush, and everything he stands for and all his policies and ideas and people. That's why it's such a disappointment the way Obama de-emphasizes issues in his campaign. I want to get revved up by ideas -- how we're going to change things, not JUST that we're going to change things. Duh! Did anyone doubt we wanted to change 180 degrees from Bush? But we want to change the policies, not just the politics. We don't want inspiration for inspiration's sake and empty words based on air. His campaign seems to be about him, not us and the ideas and issues we care about, and the KIND of change we want, not just the word change. That's why it's ironic that he cried so hard about the lack of issues in the ABC debate. He suffers from the same deficit! That's not to say he doesn't have a detailed platform and 4-point plans, but it's the place these things hold in his campaign. They're almost tangential. I want them to be central. So, Barack, if you do win -- and I'm not ready to concede that yet -- you're going to have to work hard to win women like me over. You might even have to do some old-style political pandering instead of the arrogant, petulant, brush-dirt-off-your shoulder cockiness that turns me off. But I suspect -- knowing how much he wants this thing, despite his success in concealing his hard-driving ambition -- if that's what it'll take to win, he'll do it.

"telling MSNBC after Hillary's win in New Hampshire that African-Americans in South Carolina had better take a very, very careful look at why Hillary Clinton didn't shed tears for the victims of Katrina"

This is a mis-characterization of what was said, he never said African-Americans have to take a very careful look. He does point out that 45% of the SC electorate are African American after he talked about taking a close look the tears but, it's a stretch to make your claim SZ.

Paul Daniel Ash:

Sadly, I accept.

Cincinnatus:

This is what the National Co-chair of the Obama campaign said on a national cable news channel after losing New Hampshire:

JACKSON: Well, Nora [O'Donnell], something else happened...ah...in New Hampshire that we're still analyzing within the Barack Obama campaign. First of all, we're moving on to South Carolina. But there were tears that...ah...melted...ah...the Granite State. And those...ah...tears...that...ah...Mrs. Crint..ah...Mrs. Clinton...ah..ah..cried on that day clearly moved voters. O'DONNELL: mmm... JACKSON: She somehow connected with those voters. But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of...Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina, where 45 percent of African Americans will participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama. We saw something very clever..ah...in the last week of this campaign--coming out of Iowa, going into New Hampshire--we saw a sensitivity factor, something that Mrs. Clinton has not been able to do with voters that she tried in New Hampshire. Not in response to voters resp--..ah..ah..not--not in response to Katrina, not