The Puerto Rico Primary

"I'm joining the Clinton traveling press for the last day of campaigning in South Dakota tomorrow."
Did you have to do that, Joe?

"We are selecting delegates who will be able to vote at the Democratic Convention even though they won't be able to vote in the general. "

-----------------------

But wait a minute, Joe. Haven't the Obama folks been screaming about following the "rules" and not changing the "rules" in the middle of the game? If the rules stated from the outset that Puerto Rico counts, Puerto Rico counts. I don't see how their votes are any less legitimate than any other voters.

Since the Obama camp outspent Hillary in PR by 2:1, I think they considered it important to hold down any possibility of her winning the popular vote as well.

Joe, you've been around the block enough times to know the Macker never sees the downside of anything, cut him some slack. That dude never steps out of character.

Unless, of course, you try and enforce the nomination rules that he basically wrote.

Good post, Joe. The MSM has been waay too credulous about Hillary's remaining "arguments."

The burden of reconciliation should be on her, but she won't accept it. She and her husband and their chief acolytes seem to have truly internalized their own cult of victimization. I suspect she'll play lip-service to unity, and we will see, at minimum, one Obama-undermining "gaffe" from Bill per month between now and election day in November (which will backfire on them, btw... just my hunch)..

But wait a minute, Joe. Haven't the Obama folks been screaming about following the "rules" and not changing the "rules" in the middle of the game? If the rules stated from the outset that Puerto Rico counts, Puerto Rico counts.

Okay. And if the rules count, then Michigan, Florida and the "popular vote" don't. How many ways do we have to slice and dice and rearrange the rules, picking some that count and some that don't, and some that should and some that shouldn't, until Hillary Clinton and her supporters accept that she lost, that she lost because she voted for Bush's war, that she wasn't cheated, that she wasn't robbed, that she gave it her best shot and that it wasn't enough.

Enough.

Firing Terry McAuliffe, or at least ordering him to stay the hell off the TV, would've been a good post-Potomac move for Clinton.

Jim: And if the rules count, then Michigan, Florida and the "popular vote" don't. How many ways do we have to slice and dice and rearrange the rules, picking some that count and some that don't, and some that should and some that shouldn't, until Hillary Clinton and her supporters accept that she lost, that she lost because she voted for Bush's war, that she wasn't cheated, that she wasn't robbed, that she gave it her best shot and that it wasn't enough.
-----------------------

I've never argued that Michigan and Florida should count. But it is stupid to say that Puerto Rico shouldn't count after they followed all the rules. The media has gone on endlessly about Hillary not following the rules, but when it inconvenient to Joe to have to spend the weekend in Puerto Rico all of a sudden the rules are foolish and arbitrary.

Slightly (but not really) off topic since Teresa is discussing rules...

Does anyone other than me think that it is the height of irony that if only FL and MI had left their respective primaries where they had been originally then they would have had HUGE impact on the outcome of this process rather than just be part of a sideshow that threatens the chances of the party in the fall?

"This sort of thing is just plain annoying, and divisive. The impotent ferocity of the Clinton campaign over the past month has done neither herself or Barack Obama much good. I suspect the Clinton campaign will be over in a matter of days....and then, I believe, the onus will be on Clinton to initiate the reconciliation process."

Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have shown a lot of "ferocity." The problem is that the media in general has decided that this is a cause and effect situation, where the Clinton campaign's negativity is the cause and the Obama campaign's negativity is the effect. When you combine this bias with so much sexism - not from Joe, but from other members of the media - it's easy to see why the party is so divided. Numerous articles have been written about the Clinton campaign's horrible tactics while the Obama campaign has largely escaped criticism for their negative attacks. In addition, the very definitions of "negativity" and "attack" have been different for Clinton and Obama. When her campaign talks about his inexperience and lack of record, they are called negative. When his campaign talks about her polarizing personality, and inability to unite people, they are not called negative.

These unequal standards, and the media's firm conviction that any negativity from the Obama campaign is merely in response to Clinton's horrible attacks, are not supported by actual evidence, and are responsible for much of the disunity in the Democratic party. The media have been absurdly biased against Clinton, which has irritated her supporters, and the Democratic establishment have done little to improve things (Howard Dean was 4 months late). And now, in the ultimate irony, Clinton is being held responsible for fixing this situation.

Joe,

Great post. The last day in South Dakota should be quite revealing. One of those great opportunities that can turn into a book.

Puerto Rico is as important in the 2008 election as a fart is on a windy day. Here for a moment and then gone.

Puerto Rico primary illustrates everything that is wrong with this primary process. It's a territory that can not vote for President and yet the Democratic Party assigns 55 delegates, gives it more delegates than many states and treats it as a state.

Even worse, the Clinton folks have used it to further their popular vote garbage and create a divisive environment in the party. If Hillary loves it so much maybe she can become Governor of Puerto Rico. As far as Puerto Rico's statehood, I vote "No, Not so Much."

Terry McAuliffe is fighting for all he is worth because he knows he has no future if Clinton does not win. He will say anything and do anything because he has reached the end!!! Based on his incredible inability to deliver for the Democratic Party when he ran it, the Clinton campaign represented his last chance to remain relevant in the party. It's over and his only future is with his beloved Fox News.

TK:
but when it inconvenient to Joe to have to spend the weekend in Puerto Rico all of a sudden the rules are foolish and arbitrary.

But wait a minute, Joe. Haven't the Obama folks been screaming about following the "rules" and not changing the "rules" in the middle of the game?.

Are you talking about Joe Klein? Or about the Obama folks "screaming"?

Rose,

Please please go join the Republican Party, if you're not a Republican -- you should be.

"..."Haven't the Obama folks been screaming about following the "rules" and not changing the "rules" in the middle of the game?"
Okay. And if the rules count, then Michigan, Florida and the "popular vote" don't. .."
He He.
The antics of the Clintonites can be amusing.
At the same time, it is embarrassing now to behold the teflon Clintons that we once held in awe - brought to their knees by an unlikely upstart.

And I love it.

Rose,

Please please go join the Republican Party, if you're not a Republican -- you should be.
----------------------------

Lovely, just because Rose points out some inconvenient facts she is kicked out of the Democratic party.

It is fine for Obama supporters to explain losses in West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Indiana, etc... as the product of racism, but any attempt to look at whether sexism has played a role in this election is out of bounds.

I think Rose feels like I do that Hillary lost for numerous reasons, but that does not excuse the sexism that pervaded the media during this time. Howard Dean on This Week today said that many in the media made sexist comments that would have required those people to have been fired had they been made about race. Should Dean be kicked out of the Democratic party as well?

"Rose,
Please please go join the Republican Party, if you're not a Republican -- you should be."

No, see, that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what people need to be saying right now.

Both sides have to suck it up and do what it takes to get ready for the fall. But people are engaging in this Democrat civil war, and it's going to get McCain elected.

"I suspect the Clinton campaign will be over in a matter of days."

Joe Klein was saying it was over for HRC back in February.

Jim: Are you talking about Joe Klein? Or about the Obama folks "screaming"?----------------------

Joe primarily here. He says the PR vote is "ridiculous." Nice. PR follows the rules, are allowed to vote at the Convention, but their votes should not count.

BTW, since the prevailing opinion on here is that Obama only loses states because the voters in those states are stone cold racists, are we throwing PR on the pile of racists as well? They seem to be awfully far away from Appalachia...

At last, a political event even more ridiculous the Iowa Republican straw poll--at least, Iowans can vote in November.

That's not fair. Puerto Ricans are US citizens. It's good that they get some kind of attention, some kind of vote. As opposed to the straw poll, wherein Romney paid a bunch of Iowans to show up, whereupon they voted for Huckabee.

Be interested to hear your thoughts on the reconciliation process, Joe. It's no secret that once Clinton realized she had very little chance of matching Obama in pledged delegates, she adopted the "kitchen sink" strategy. I'm not saying that no one affiliated with the Obama campaign has ever said anything negative about Clinton-- I'm just saying that her approach was to make him appear unelectable to encourage the superdelegates to pick her over him. So, Rose, I think the "responding" characterization was fair.

Cliff and TK are right. There has been sexist rhetoric in this campaign. 95 percent of it has come from the media, people like Chris Matthews. Obama supporters shouldn't be trying to run Clinton supporters' noses in the result of this primary.

Related but side issue.
Talk of capitalism ...
You saw the crowds at the rallies. The excitement. The devotion. The drama. Reminds one of the visit by the Beatles.
They haven't had enough. If someone came out - say, soon after June 3 - with a movie, even an amateurish film, on the campaigns and the breathtaking antics so far who is to say that it cant make millions?

Beat the crowd and make a statement, Rusty. Don't wait till December to compete with the Spielbergs for the weekend $$$!
Hurry!
Hurry!

Floridian, why would you say that? Can you see that it's possible to support Clinton, be dismayed by the media's sexism and bias, and be a true progressive? I've made it very clear that I want Obama to win the GE, but contrary to the Bush Administration's "reality isn't real" thinking, ignoring the problems Obama faces doesn't make it more likely that he will win.

"I think Rose feels like I do that Hillary lost for numerous reasons, but that does not excuse the sexism that pervaded the media during this time." - TeresaKopec, yes that's exactly what I feel.

"I'm not saying that no one affiliated with the Obama campaign has ever said anything negative about Clinton-- I'm just saying that her approach was to make him appear unelectable to encourage the superdelegates to pick her over him." - Elvis, but an electability argument based Clinton's polarizing personality and inability to unite people was an essential part of Obama's campaign. That changed after Texas and Ohio, when the electability argument became more associated with Clinton. So they both claimed that the other one was unelectable - they just used different reasons to justify their arguments. Which goes back to my point about the arbitrary definitions of "negativity."

I don't think a Puerto Rico primary is a ridiculous concept.

These folks are greatly impacted by who is President, and giving them some say in who our party nominates to run for that offices strikes me as fundamentally democratic and in the spirit of what our party stands for.

Therefore HRC saying their votes would count in this race for "most popular votes" is not off-base. What is off-base is the idea that the popular vote means anything at all within the confines of the democratic primary system.

TeresaKopec, Please also join Rose in the Republican Party.

Your constant harping about sexism is bullcrap. When you lose, you can't lose gracefully so it's some sexism issue now. Face it you had a candidate that resorted to playing the race card in South Carolina then when they got hammered for that, immediately played the sexism card. She made so many mistakes that it is hard to count them all, including Bosnia sniper fire.

Cliff,

Sorry man, but I'm done playing nice while Clinonites play every possible card in the book, race, sexism, changing the rules, etc. Do you really think they are just going to go with the flow and jump on board Obama's campaign with all their heart? Not a chance. I think they will do anything they can to sabotage his election chances. And the sooner we all recognize that these people are poison and willing to give up everything they supposedly stood for just to make sure that the only Democrat who gets into the White House is Hillary, the better we will be able to blunt thier attacks. This is a cult who ignores lying, changes the rules to fit their own agenda and will say anything or do anything to get power. Any normal person upon hearing the Bosnia sniper story being told time and time again by Hillary herself would have walked away as quickly as they could. This was not some pastor's words, but the candidate's OWN words. But they all defended her and then acted like there was nothing wrong with telling a few lies. Probably because that is the way they live their own lives.

Would you really have people who used the race card, sexism cards, who made up stories and facts to support their situation work for you?

I doubt it. And that's why I say to Rose and Teresa please join the Republican Party.

Another solid post. You're really hitting your stride these days! Good tone, funny and biting.

Joe:

You should not be on this beat.
Get yourself off of this assignment as soon as possible.

I know that "expert analysis" of the horse race is the only way to Russert's round table, but you do yourself great discredit when you opine about politics.

But, really, what are we doing here?

Well, in theory you'd keep your f--king opinions to yourself, and take full advantage (on behalf of us, the interested public) of this once-in-a-lifetime exposure to crypto-democratic sausage-making characteristic of the entire Democratic Party electoral process.

There's a lot to be learned, if we're to reform politics. Could you just be helpful and not resentful for a change, Joe? How do you expect your analysis of foreign policy to have any real value, if the Kafka-esque nightmare of the Democratic primary season continues to exist in any way similar to its current grotesque form?

Have a cocktail, and then think of something we could do to change things, and then write it down, Joe!

I am happy with Rose and TK in the Democratic Party. Please stay! I promise to support whoever the nominee is with equal fervor.

The thing is, people put too much focus on the individual. What we are doing here is deciding which party controls and staffs the entire freaking executive branch. I don't want McCain picking justices, the AG, the Sec. of State, the Sec. of Interior, etc etc etc.

I would also note that - had Obama lost, his most ardent supporters might have called back to events in South Carolina or even the "..as far as I know" comment and had a case to make about bias as well. Hillary is not unique here in having a legitimate beef. This is one screwed up process that is constantly made worse by ends-justify-the-means campaign operatives and lazy corporate media.

Joe,

Having spent time in both South Dakota and Montana during the past two years, all I can say is go, and enjoy. Two of the most beautiful states in the country.

Everyone else, go see Deadwood, the Black Hills, Chief Crazy Horse carving, Wall Drug Store and especially the Badlands. Do also check out West Yellowstone Montana just outside the Yellowstone National Park then do Billings, Glacier National Park, etc.

Zip through Wyoming and check out Cody--- great museum ----and of course Jackson Hole Wyoming.

I'm breathing a sigh of releif. This campaign has been one of the most interesting, annoying, and dirtiest campaigns I have ever seen in my 30 some years as an adult.

I used to think that Hillary might make a good VP, but she's obviously so ambitious that she will do anything, and everything, she can to win the nomination.

She failed.

I am hoping against hope that she will not hand the R's any more weapons to fire at Obama in the upcoming general election, BUT...

In doing so, I'm putting my money on the hope that one of the most amoral politicians I've seen will actually make the right moral decision.

NOT a real good gamble. We will soon see if there is a vindictive side to her as well...

Rose and Teresa keep the heat on about sexist rhetoric and the racist rhetoric. Its real and its hurting the country. I think we haven't seen anything yet and it does not matter if its Hillary or Obama goes on to the GE. This kind of crap needs to be fought now and the fight needs to continue no matter where is it coming from Democrats, GOP, talk radio and print media, or the talking heads. At some point we have to prove that this type of crap is unacceptable.

I have never under stood why any other nation on earth should respect us or look to us as a model for anything when we gather in our own little corners and disrespect ourselves, our sisters, brothers and neighbors.

People need to understand that this country in this point in our history will be just fine if Hillary or Obama runs it for a little while. It won't be fine if McCain runs it. Its not McCain as a man. It's his policies and the people he will surrounds himself with to implement those policies that will surely push us closer to the edge. All you racists and sexists out there get over your selves cause we got a country to save.

I disagree, Rose, because mentioning that someone has high negatives is a very different act than working to drive up an opponent's negatives, in a primary. Plus, I don't think that was an argument that Obama was really pressing-- but I could be mistaken.

You are right about supporters of the two sides changing their rhetoric as time went on. You point out the "electability" switch. There's also the "role of the superdelegates" switch. Clinton had been working to get them to declare for her since about 2005, and as she stepped up her efforts, Obama supporters argued for them to hold off. Then, once the superdelegates began declaring for Obama, the Clinton campaign fell back on its "count every vote, let's make sure this goes on until June!" approach, and Obama supporters (like me) argued for the superdels to declare and get the primary over.

Halperin is still pimping Wafflegate, I kid you not.

(link)

Hillary's delusional, kamikaze campaign has gone on long enough.
If she doesn't offically endorse Obama this coming Friday, it's time to fit her for a straitjacket and get her to a mental hospital.

Nice to see what a serious reporter Halperin is. That spot on Fox may just open up for him yet.

The Democratic Party is still a walking disaster, a party too gutless to curb even foes from within seeking to tear it apart like pirates on a bloated fiefdom. The same group that can't or won't control this infighting still want to be elected leaders. Yeah, ok.

Clinton's supporters, frothing at the mouth thanks to Team Clinton's identity/victim card plays, are forcing the party to commit seppuku on those same false ideals, an ironic fate as these weapons were often used by Dems to thought-police from false moral high grounds its own enemies on the outside.

Sexism or not, the Clintons and their cronies are still a mob of scumbags, in the same way, say, Al Sharpton and Hagee are no matter what racist/anti-religious sentiments they face. Sticking feathers up Hitler's ass still does not make him a chicken. Funny how the Clinton platform was and STILL is a massive ode to their own sense of self-entitlement, as was Georgie's own candidacy in 2000.

Barack clearly should not have tried to run on a platform of change and rankle the establishment if it was going to cause this much trouble. Why, look how divided Puerto Rico is, of all things. Oh well, at least the MSM made a killing. They always do.

Sometimes you need a sledge hammer to get someone's attention. Having used it now I wish to make a point that Clinton supporters need to stop complaining and using excuses and just move on.

I was a Clinton supporter before I was a Obama supporter. When the primary in Florida occured I voted for Obama being sure it was probably a wasted vote. Never expecting he would end up the nominee. Had he not, I would have just racked it up as another lost cause and supported Hillary. The difference is that the Hillary supporters and most everyone else expected Hillary to win, that is why it hurts so much for her supporters. I sympathize with their plight, but I just wish they would stop the blame game. That is the problem. I really have no interest in Rose and TK leaving the party, I just felt I needed to use the angry sledge hammer to get them to express their bitterness and anger then accept the facts and start anew.

Now why Obama?

I went to the Obama Tampa, Florida. 20,000 WOW!, for a Wednesday afternoon - HUGE. Many of the attendees I talked to have taken leave time to attend the event. Giving up vacation time to see Obama how committed do you have to be to do that?

I found the event absolutely amazing and transforming. There we were waiting in line for two hours to get in, like one big happy family. Around my wife and I were four black ladies who wanted to talk politics. And we talked like we were neighbors on the front porch, discussing what we did for a living, how everything was getting more expensive, racism in the Democratic campaign, elements of sexism, women’s issues, Hillary’s campaign, beating John McCain, all without any limitations or guarded words.

It was so interesting. Every one of the ladies recognized that education, upbringing and financial situation had something to do with racial feelings. Not a one condemned, but expressed an understanding about how some whites can feel threatened and prejudiced towards black people and how they may not be able to vote for a black person because they are undereducated or poor.

For them Hillary’s sexism charges were a non-issue. They just felt Hillary was not the best candidate. Never did they say they supported Obama because he was black. They just felt he was the better candidate, more inspirational, he was against the war from the beginning, had good ideas, would heal the country, would make our country respected in the world, etc.

Interestingly enough they did not condemn Hillary, even admired her “grit,” and seemed to have compassion for her efforts. All hoped that one day soon a woman would become President. And this is the important point, there was no way they would vote for John McCain or stay home if Barack Obama was not the nominee. It was too important an election to give the Republicans four more years to destroy the country.

This event was transforming because I have never seen people more polite, generous or concerned about each other. On the way in to the Times Forum arena a black lady fell to the ground and people of all colors rushed to assist her.

Once inside we became bottlenecked in a hallway because they were only letting us through a couple of entrances to the seating area. Everyone was mindful of each other, lots of sorrys, got enough room, here let me step aside so your wife can rejoin you in the crush of bodies, a joke that Obama was indeed bringing people together, everyone was unusually concerned about each other’s welfare in the crush of bodies. I have never seen that at any event, usually it’s every man and woman for themselves.

Once in our seats, when someone got up to go for some food or the bathroom, whether you were Asian, black, white, Hispanic(and we had every racial makeup around us), offers to watch or save your seat for you were constant. We were all brothers and sisters, not strangers. When a black man had trouble navigating back to his seat with a handful of drinks and food in a container, the white gentleman on the next higher row, took the food and drink out of his hand so he could get back to his seat and then passed it back down to him.

When a black man returned to his seat wearing a blue Obama t-shirt, a white guy asked him where he got it because he had not seen it for sale. The black guy told him there was a stand in the hallway to the right and another black lady chimed in and said they might be out of them because she also had just been at the stand, but that she saw some outside earlier on the far side of the arena.

Even on the way out, everyone was courteous, giving you room to merge into the exit isle. There was a total sense of a real community at the event. It was absolutely the most considerate, helpful, and kind group of strangers I had ever encountered. If this is the kind of America Obama is trying to bring to us, it can not happen quick enough.

I later talked to another guy I knew who had attended the event and sat on the opposite side of the arena. Amazingly he repeated the same observations I noted, people had really been brought together. This is why Obama is right for America.

Elvis, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think talking about someone being polarizing helps make them polarizing, since the argument was based on the idea that Clinton's personality was at the root of her high negatives, because of course that was their logic for claiming that he wouldn't end up with high negatives; Otherwise their argument would make no sense. And it's certainly interesting that as Obama's negatives started rising with his increasing fame and then the Wright issue, the Obama campaign worked very hard in their conference calls to focus on her polarizing personality, not just numbers: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4495865&page=1

Floridian, so did you think I was making up facts and stories when I talked about the Clinton campaign playing the race card and criticized the media for its racism? Here's a post that includes a comment by an Obama supporter - in a weird coincidence her name is Rose - that I sincerely hope you read: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6090

Floridian: You're telling two intelligent people to go join the Republican party just because they inconveniently won't stop supporting Hillary. And then you make up some paranoid story about Clinton supporters being double agents out to sabotage everything.

First off, that could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people keep lashing out at Clinton supporters like that, then yes, maybe they will join the Obama effort in order to sabotage it.

Second: Seriously? You think Obama has it so wrapped up that he can afford to have disenfranchise voters and have them go over to the McCain campaign?

Listen, I'm seriously annoyed at the sh!t Clinton's campaign is pulling. But, I have to acknowledge that Obama's campaign is pulling some sh!t too, and I also have to acknowledge that the general election has to be our primary concern right now. And that means reconciliation, somehow, between the different factions.

Third: I hope Halperin chokes on his goddamned pancakes.

Enough with the "popular vote" argument. It doesn't account for all of the caucus states...it includes the questionable results in Michigan...and as Tim Russert pointed out to Harold Ickes today, he (Ickes) pointed out last December that it's all about the delegates. The supers yet to commit aren't stupid...why insult their intelligence as well as the rest of us interested in beating McCain in the fall?

Floridian: I posted my response before I saw your latest post. Thanks for giving some context for your views.

The rest of us should do what Obama did about Halperin...just ignore him.

Popular Vote Total Obama: 17,350,032 48.2% Clinton: 17,277,187 48% Obama +72,845 +0.2%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* Obama: 17,684,116 48.2% Clinton: 17,501,049 47.7% Obama +183,067 +0.5%

Popular Vote (w/ MI)** Obama: 17,350,032 47.4% Clinton: 17,605,496 48.1% Clinton +255,464 +0.7%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* Obama: 17,684,116 47.5% Clinton: 17,829,358 47.8% Clinton +145,242 +0.4%

Here are the latest Real Clear Politics numbers. SD and MT are likely to boost Obama's popular-vote lead (a bit) on Tuesday night. Again, the only case for "winning the popular vote" is to count Michigan. If you throw the "uncommitted" Michigan votes into the Obama column (as the DNC rules committee implied yesterday), there goes the case. Carrying this argument past the "magic number" is pointless, divisive and ego-driven.

Terry McAuliffe is impossibly smarmy. He's always given me the creeps. Why the Clintons have him continuing to represent them is beyond me.

Well, OK, Rose, we can disagree. I don't think it's unfair to say that Obama was "responding," at least at the time of the article you link, given that Clinton's campaign had rolled out the "kitchen sink" strategy (comparing Obama to Bush, comparing him unfavorably to McCain, etc.) a month prior. Also, I don't recall the Obama campaign making Clinton's unelectability its raison d'etre, but like I said I could be wrong. Back then, I was a Dodd supporter, then I think I claimed to support Edwards for a while.

Anyone who claims that Florida is like Zimbabwe just to scare up a few more resentful supporters is divisive, dishonest and irresponsible. We might also mention the endorsement of McCain, the lies about whether Michigan and Florida counted, the open courting of white racism and the ridiculous pandering on the gas tax holiday. Hillary Clinton has run an appalling campaign these past two months, and her supporters have hidden from this behind the excuse of sexism.

Obama has not been sexist, and you can't blame him for the media or the people who create and vend Hillary Clinton nutcrackers. Think about what real tough women would have done - would Thatcher or Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir have sniveled about how tough their lives were and how sexism stopped them? Hell no. Those were real feminists, not simply opportunists without principles. Hillary Clinton could learn a lot from them.

Even if you count the Popular Vote by the way the Clinton campaign wants which says that Obama would have received 0 votes in Michigan but gives her 328,000, they only have a tiny lead:

17,829,358 to 17,684,116 or just 0.004%

Since the campaign is about delegates, how is a virtual tie accomplished by tortured reasoning a valid reason for the Super Delegates to overrule the delegate winner? If the popular vote was overwhelmingly in her favor she might have an argument but this is not compelling by any standard.

Isn't it about time to change the Comment of the Day. It's been there for a month. Surely somebody's written something good/interesting/clever/whatever in the last week or two.

Given Obama's abysmal showing in the Puerto Rico primary, following his humiliating showing in the Kentucky primary, and following his efforts to disenfranchise Democrats who voted in Michigan and Florida, it is now past time for Obama to abandon his campaign and graciously concede the nomination to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has defeated Obama in the popular vote and is the only one who can put an end to the Rove/Cheney/Bush/Wolfowitz/Katherine Harris/Halliburton/Fox News/Diebold crime syndicate. Obama can always run again in 2012.

Floridian: Your constant harping about sexism is bullcrap. When you lose, you can't lose gracefully so it's some sexism issue now
------------------------

I have never said Hillary lost the election because of sexism. Not once. I said that it exists in the media. I have also said that I fear the GOP is setting up Michelle Obama to be the next "Hillary" -- painting her as a hyperambitious, bitter, ball busting bitch. So every time that you don't defend Hillary from those accusations, you need to stop and think who they are going to use them on next.

I have repeatedly said that I would vote for Obama in the fall (and his is the only campaign I have donated money too.)

Having said that, I don't think he is anything other than a skilled politician. I agree with the policies that he espouses (like I do those of Hillary), but I don't find him to be anything out of the ordinary in terms of politicians. Sorry if that makes me bitter and cynical.

To paraphrase James Wolcott, I look for my transcendence in arenas other than politics. That means when candidates start wearing flag pins, quit controversial churches, etc... I breathe a sigh of relief that they have the political sense to do what needs to be done in order to win the White House and my heart isn't broken because my guy turns out to be human after all.

BTW, Floridian, I have seen many Obama supporters at Swampland explain his primary losses as the result of racism. Perhaps your feeling that Rose and I blame Hillary's loss on sexism is a bit of projection on your part...

Hillary should leave the dark-side, and come to the light. Obama will just throw her under the bus as he has done to everyone else on his rise up the political ladder.

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print

All of the sexism thrown out in this campaign was started by Obama and his minions of supporters. The sorry thing is Hillary would make a much better candidate in the GE against McCain.

Hillary would be smart if she took this all the way to the convention. I am betting this type of "fight", would garner her the nomination. She should since she has won more in the popular vote.

The only real contest that Obama has won since Wright-Gate was North Carolina. He would not have won there if there had there not been an overwhelming Black vote. All this says is that he will win the black vote. The moderate and conservative whites will flock to McCain.

Funny thing here. It took Mr. Barack Obama the endorsement, public and not public, of the Democratic Party big wigs, the back stabbing of people like Richardson and Andrew (to name a few), the outspending Hillary Clinton, sometimes 3 to 1, the absolute and total support of the African American constituency and yes, the most powerful weapon: the media, to beat Hillary Clinton.

The pathetic lot at CNN keep saying he took on the "Clinton Machine". Not really, he had a whole army with the equivalent of WMD behind him in order to beat this female candidate who almost made it to the presidency of the United States. Bottom line: Hillary Clinton is superb, extraordinary and a force to reckon with. Those who say he doesn't need her? Think again and don't be smug.

Someone in this post spoke about the fact that this should not be about personalities. He or She is absolutely right, it shouldn't. But when the media fell in love with a guy that has an extremely thin resumé and someone who has no business running for President of the United States at this point in his life, they had to make it about personalities. It was the only way he could beat her. So they did.

Obama will win. McCain doesn't have a chance and the media is already taking care of that, have you not noticed?. There is no challenge to Obama in the general and everyone knows it, his real challenge was Clinton. I mean, THIS WAS the real election. Are you kidding me?

Let's just hope Mr. Obama turns out to be all that his supporters believe he will be. I sincerely doubt it, but hey, I would love to be wrong. If he isn't a fantastic president which is the least he can do after all this, then I hope Mrs. Clinton is strong enough to give it a go in 2012.

Que sera, sera...whatever will be, will be.

Cliff,

Thanks for your comments.

The Clinton folks need to just work this out of their system, spew a little anger over the next few days and then on the 4th, 5th or 6th get back on the train and get rid of the Republican corruption and war mongering gang in Washington.

We are all just one big dysfunctional family that doesn't always get along, but needs one another to survive because the alternative threatens the existance of our very family.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 1, 2008 6:56 PM:

I don't think it's unfair to say that Obama was "responding," at least at the time of the article you link, given that Clinton's campaign had rolled out the "kitchen sink" strategy...

I'm sorry, Elvis --I enjoy your commentary, but I just can't let that stand unexamined.

Elvis, you link to that idiotic Time piece by that joker Patrick Healy as a source of the "common knowledge" that "Clinton threw the kitchen sink", i.e., lived up to the media's nasty ol' witch narrative, when she supposedly attacked Prince Obama in particularly mean, diverse and unscrupulous ways.

I watched that whole narrative unfold, and the new Kewl-Kidz Katch-Fraze "kitchen sink" become the insider term du jour for a number of nauseating and banal weeks.

I am forced to quote the incomparable Bob Somerby --who was forced to quote Joe Klein-- in order to shed some much needed light on the origin of that particular slogan.

WHERE DO STORY-LINES COME FROM: We were struck by several parts of Joe Klein’s current piece in Time.

KLEIN: Hillary Clinton won a convincing victory in Pennsylvania, but it came at a significant cost to the Clinton family's reputation and to the Democratic Party. She won by throwing the "kitchen sink" at Obama, as her campaign aides described it. Her campaign had been an assault on Obama's character flaws, real and imagined, rather than on matters of substance.

That “kitchen sink” statement has now become a standard way of trashing Clinton’s campaign. It’s often attributed to Clinton’s staff, as Klein does here. Last week, even before reading Klein, we’d become curious about where this familiar script-point began. Through the magic of Nexis, we traced it on back. For those who want to examine the Pleasing Group Novels they’re handed, this is where story-lines come from:

The current “kitchen sink” story-element dates back to a piece by Patrick Healy. We regard Healy as highly unreliable. But here it is, in his opening paragraph, back on February 26. His headline: “Clinton Campaign Starts 5-Point Attack on Obama:”

HEALY (2/26/08):After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama's candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a ''kitchen sink'' fusillade against Mr. Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum.

The effort underscores not only Mrs. Clinton's recognition that the next round of primaries—in Ohio and Texas on March 4—are must-win contests for her. It also reflects her advisers' belief that they can persuade many undecided voters to embrace her at the last minute by finally drawing sharply worded, attention-grabbing contrasts with Mr. Obama.

How reliable is Healy? Pathetically, this was part of this same report. Deeply, deeply pathetic:

HEALY: [T]he attack that received the most pop, on cable television and blogs, came after a photograph of Mr. Obama in ceremonial African garb appeared on the Drudge Report, and the item's author, Matt Drudge, claimed that the image was provided by a Clinton staff member.

Mr. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said that the Clinton campaign had ''engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party.'' It has not been independently verified that the photograph came from the Clinton campaign.

...Healy, a less-than-reliable fellow, attributed the colorful phrase to one (unnamed) Clinton adviser. Of course, anyone who knows the ways of these baboon scribes knows how easily such unattributed, two-word “quotations” can be manufactured. But putting such musings to the side, this seems to by the original source for the claim that has become So Standard. Healy’s quote was widely repeated on cable that night, used to signify the grim negativity of the Clinton campaign. (Just look what Mister Drudge said!) The attribution became Standard Fare so quickly that Maureen Dowd didn’t bother explaining when she typed the next day:

DOWD (2/27/08): Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem. If she can only change this or that about her persona, or tear down this or that about Obama's. But the whirlwind of changes and charges gets wearing.

By threatening to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, the Clinton campaign simply confirmed the fact that they might be going down the drain.

By now, “the Clinton campaign” was said to have made this claim. By the way: BS about hairstyles isn’t negative, according to rules of this guild.

By now, this reference has become Quite Standard. Klein improved on the tale a bit, pluralizing the number of aides who were said to have described the strategy. Just for the record: Before Klein’s report, the “kitchen sink” quote had only been cited twice in Time. No one had cited a second aide who had supposedly said it. But pluralizing is Standard “Journalistic” Practice. It’s a way to make weak stories better.

So this is where your stories come from, in your heavily novelized political culture. Healy cited Mister Drudge—and that one alleged Clinton aide, offering a two-word statement. By now, the alleged aide’s alleged comment has traveled the world—and he or she has become plural.

One last point: Why did this story-line become popular? Presumably, this is part of the story: In the days after Healy’s report, the Obama campaign began to cite the “kitchen sink” line, using it as a complaint against Clinton. When Klein repeats (and improves) this Standard Tale, he repeats an Obama narrative. But then, you could write a political history of the past dozen years just by tracing such transactions. Whose story-lines does the guild adopt? It’s a very central question. Because yes: They do adopt campaign narratives, lock stock and barrel. In some cases, word for word.

See what I'm talking about, Elvis?

There was no kitchen sink, just a catch-phrase made up by Drudge (and repeated endlessly by those in the political press corps eager to prove how hip they all were to the new lingo), and then adopted by the Obama campaign to deflect any criticism the HRC campaign had to throw at him. Because it sounded novel, was easy to remember and spew, (sorta like "cut n' run" or "fight them over there" or "flip-flopper"), and fit the existing persona narratives involving a mean, vindictive, frustrated female boss character (ol' meanie Hillary), the Obama campaign used it to their political advantage --like they did in Iowa when they claimed that a fellow Democrat was "just too polarizing

If you want to say that she started to attack Obama from an underdog position after Super Tuesday's big losses, Elvis, then that makes perfect sense. If you want to debunk, or ridicule her campaign's claims about Obama, I can help you do some of that (especially the more Republican and right-wing of those attacks). But to simply refer to the Beltway's catch-phrase driven conventional wisdom, and then make the claim "he was just responding to the kitchen sink" is not helpful to the cause of fairness, non-sh*tty journalism or a Democratic Presidency in the fall.

I will give you major credit for linking to a source for your assertions, because that's something that is sorely lacking in commentary (to our collective discredit). The only problem with doing so was that you were linking to a piece whose sole inflammatory excuse for existence was to source Drudge's "anonymous aide".

Thanks for reading this, Elvis Elvisberg.

A favor, please? When you're gonna post a link to someone like Halperin would you post a little of the text? I don't want to give him the click, but I would be interested in seeing the garbage--don't ask me why, it's like gawking at a car accident, isn't it?

Elvis, what stuart said. Also, from a general perspective, cause and effect arguments should bear the burden of proof. I can spend some time searching the internet to come up with earlier examples of the Obama campaign's "polarizing" argument, but it's the people like Joe who are making the argument that the Obama campaign's negativity was a response to the Clinton campaign's negativity who should be proving their argument. If I say "lipstick causes mouth cancer," I have to prove my argument; I can't claim that it's valid until someone disproves it.

This may seem like a digression - and it obviously is - but politics would be better if we were all more careful about burdens of proof. For example, in the build-up to the Iraq war the debate became focused on disproving the Bush Administration's claims about WMDs when it really should have been focused on the need for the Bush Administration to prove their claims. Much of this is related to the MSM's abhorrence of saying "We don't know. We'll have to spend some time thinking about this and gathering evidence, and even then it's possible that we'll never know for sure." One of the strangest things about politics and the media's coverage of it is that there is so little education or intellect involved, yet so much certainty.

"One of the strangest things about politics and the media's coverage of it is that there is so little education or intellect involved, yet so much certainty."

BRAVO! Thank you Rose. This is a worldwide phenomena

"One of the strangest things about politics and the media's coverage of it is that there is so little education or intellect involved, yet so much certainty."

BRAVO! Thank you Rose. This is a worldwide phenomena

Floridian:
"Dysfunctional family" is a good way of putting it. I'm glad we can see eye to eye on this.

Anyone out there got an explaination for the low turnout in Puerto Rico? Somewhere between 15 and 20% of registered voters. For a territory that harbors hopes of statehood (or not), it seems a very poor indicator of interest in USA politics.

Anyone out there got an explaination for the low turnout in Puerto Rico? Somewhere between 15 and 20% of registered voters. For a territory that harbors hopes of statehood (or not), it seems a very poor indicator of interest in USA politics.

There's not enough hard-working white Americans there, clearly. Which makes Hillary's resounding victory that much more striking.

Thank you, Joe. For finally saying it like it is. I'm sure there will be those Clinton supporters who disagree with you, but you're right.

Barack Obama has been as kind and generous to Hillary Clinton as he could, considering he's actually running AGAINST her which many of her supporters seem to forget.

Despite some nasty folks (on both sides) I've seen repeated attempts by Obama and his supporters to reach out to Hillary and hers. Most of her more reasonable supporters have accepted this.

There will always be a few extremists, on all sides, who refuse to. We can't help this. It's time to move forward and change the disasterous course we're on right now as a country.

This is a report from CNN FOLKS, it came out about three days ago...of course it died right there.

A bit of news about the kind and generous Senator from Illinois. People talk about the Clintons?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Ned5TQoW4

Poh123 - ask yourself how many things the Obama campaign could have said about the Clintons, and chose not to. Think about it.

"Even if you count the Popular Vote by the way the Clinton campaign wants which says that Obama would have received 0 votes in Michigan but gives her 328,000, they only have a tiny lead:

17,829,358 to 17,684,116 or just 0.004%"

It might be worth pointing out here that Rush Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos' might have involved some 200,000+ crossover votes.

Guess which candidate they voted for?
Guess again which demographic they belong to?

Remember, without considering everything that happened during this latest campaign, numbers can decieve...

> The moderate and conservative whites will flock to McCain.

Only in your dreams, Rusty. But, then I'm not sure what you define as "moderate," anyway, since all the evidence you, yourself, have provided has done nothing but show that Obama is at least as moderate as Clinton, yet you keep harping that Obama is too far left.

I consider myself centrist - moderation in all things, except for a good time ;-) - and you won't see this moderate white guy voting for McMaverick. Anyone I know that does vote for him will get a swift kick in the ass.

And to all those Dems who won't vote for a Dem if their Dem doesn't win, I'd like to be a voice of reason and point out that this country will be a souped up '77 t-top 'vette - red, metal flake, though not as extreme as Corvette Summer - hammer down, on the highway to hell, should McLame win the GE. Get past the petty - yes, petty - squabbling and do what's best for the entire country: vote for a Dem. I'd say vote libertarian, or anybody but McLobbyist but we have to be realistic, here.

Otherwise, it may be time for the Tree of Liberty to be refreshed.

"Poh123 - ask yourself how many things the Obama campaign could have said about the Clintons, and chose not to. Think about it."

I will not argue whether the Obama Camp, did or did not participate in many of the attacks that were directed towards Senator Clinton. And this is not the point. Politics, of course is horrific and it is like this. What I find appalling is the hypocrisy of Senator Obama and his surrogates, referring to Clinton's campaign and tactics as old politics as well as portraying himself as the squeaky clean, pure, spiritual leader of a movement that will bring change to American Politics. All along I have known this is not possible and I have found the media's eating it up shameful. Even this report aired at a time were many people are not watching the news or the TV, on a Friday, and it has not been replayed.

This was an African American woman he shafted. A woman that supposedly admired him and saw his potential. This is a revealing story about Mr. Obama's past. Yet, nothing will come of it as I am sure there is a lot more to it than what this report shows... who knows, maybe the republicans will dig it up or maybe the media or Obama's powerful backers, and it is obvious there are some very powerful people behind him, will contain it. Again, there are no saints in politics. What is bothersome, worrisome and even dangerous is those wolves in sheep's clothing. You could never claim that about Hillary Clinton, could you? She was always a wolf with her big sharp teeth out to tear into anything she could sink her teeth into, wasn't she? In other words, everything has pretty much been said, written, implied and or fabricated about this woman. What else could Mr. Obama have held back. And by the way, he and his wife discredited Hillary Clinton every opportunity they could.

Stuart, thanks for your well-substantiated response.

I'll stop referring to the Clinton campaign's "K.S." strategy.

Now, Somerby's quotes from that article don't quite do the work he claims they do-- in fact, Healy was careful to attribute the "African garb" picture to Drudge claiming that the Clinton camp provided it, rather than taking it as Gospel that the Clinton camp was passing it around. Because of that carefulness, his claim that a Clinton campaign staffer used the "K.S." phrase becomes more credible.

However, it's been cited as though the Clinton muckety mucks all sat around and said, "gentlemen and ladies, what are we going to do to further our avowed 'kitchen sink' strategy?", which is obviously not substantiated. I don't think it's a wildly unfair characterization of her campaign-- I don't think that it's controversial to say that the Clinton camp, when it found itself hopelessly behind in pledged delegates, worked to drive up Obama's negatives in order to convince superdels to break for Clinton. (They certainly weren't unhappy about the Wright B.S. that they'd possibly been pushing for a while, and the "he said Reagan was right," gas tax, and "bitter" negative ads they ran were harmful to America). But the phrase took on a life of its own, and I won't use it anymore. Thanks for your link and your argument.

One of the strangest things about politics and the media's coverage of it is that there is so little education or intellect involved, yet so much certainty.

Well, stupidity and certainty about complex issues go hand in hand, don't they, Rose?

it's the people like Joe who are making the argument that the Obama campaign's negativity was a response to the Clinton campaign's negativity who should be proving their argument.

Fair enough. I disputed your assertion, so I wanted you to substantiate it, but you were taking issue with Joe's original claim. While my citing the attention-grabbing term in the first para of that Times article I linked detracted from the conversation, I still think that my larger point stands-- the Clinton campaign went negative, and the Obama campaign responded. As I said above, I'm pleased to concede the argument if earlier harsh comments by the Obama camp are brought to light. But it's not your job to troll the internet for them.

> A bit of news about the kind and generous Senator from Illinois. People talk about the Clintons?

Oh, please. This is nothing but smear. If those candidates had done their homework correctly, and properly filled in their petitions, Obama wouldn't have had an edge, there.

I'm not particularly for or against BHO, but this is plain crap. I ran for a public office and had to fill out a petition also. I needed only 100, but I made sure to have at least 125, in case some of my signatures were not legitimate. And if I came up short, I'd have expected to get busted for it, too. Those are the rules. If you can't even get your petitions done properly, you've no business on the ballot.

"Oh, please. This is nothing but smear. If those candidates had done their homework correctly, and properly filled in their petitions, Obama wouldn't have had an edge, there."

Of course it is.

If you can't even get your petitions done properly, you've no business on the ballot.

Mr. Nice Guy:

I think that the point here is that campaigns that win by scrutinizing other Democrats' balloting paperwork for disqualifying errors hardly can claim the kind of princely mantle we hear so much about.

All you have to do to prove this thesis is ask yourself honestly: Does that sound like Barack Obama to you?

But wait a minute, Joe. Haven't the Obama folks been screaming about following the "rules" and not changing the "rules" in the middle of the game? If the rules stated from the outset that Puerto Rico counts, Puerto Rico counts. I don't see how their votes are any less legitimate than any other voters.

Teresa, I know I'm late on this, but please bear with me. At the risk of blinding everybody with a flash of the obvious, I feel compelled to point out that Joe Klein != "Obama folks." This conflation of the media with the campaign is a huge part of the "OBAMA IS A SEXIST PIG" narrative certain disenchanted folks on the left keep pushing. You ask them to point to some evidence of that assertion, and 8 of 10 times you get something that Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, or Keith Olbermann said. Sorry, those folks aren't Obama and they're not on Obama's payroll.

So maybe it's time to figure out what's to be done. I confess I have trouble figuring out how Clinton supporters want their grievances redressed, and by whom. You have to sort out complaints about the legitimacy of the primary process, about the media/sexism, about Obama supporters, Obama the candidate, and who bears responsibility for the ugly campaign. All of these things have separate actors behind them, and presumably they can be prioritized.

So I ask Clinton supporters, then: which would you have Obama and his supporters address?

Of all the complaints, the one that surely needs the most addressing/redressing by the candidate & supporters is who Obama is supposed to represent. He would represent women just as adequately as Hillary would, I think, but the Appalachia problem is another thing. It won't just magically resolve itself once there's only one Democrat available to support.

So it seems like Hillary's argument goes: I'm the better candidate because these people support me (and maybe secondarily, I represent Appalachia best). I'm not sure that's necessarily true--I think Obama is essentially the same kind of economic populist Hillary is--but Hillary's constituents will absolutely need to be convinced some time between now & November.

I'm not saying there's some metaphysical burden Obama has to bear to right the campaign's injustices & Unify the Party, but practically speaking, the burden of the nominee is to get every possible vote. He's going to have to do it somehow. How?

the back stabbing of people like Richardson

I dearly love this line of thinking. Did Richardson sign some indentured servitude commitment to the Clintons when he was UN Ambassador or something? How exactly does someone exercising his right to choose which candidate to support equate with "back-stabbing?"

Stu, if you're running for office, and you don't expect someone to check your petition, I'd question your fitness for the position. It's a simple matter of CYA.

But let's play hypothetical, here. I'm a politician running for office. Assuming I come across someone else's petition that's clearly not legitimate, what should I do? Let it slide? Tell the guy I'm running against and give him a second chance? C'mon, I'm trying to win, here; I don't care about the other guy. If he comes in with his petition completed, but half an hour after the deadline, I'll complain about that, too. I'm in this race to win; it's not in my best interests to give it away.

Maybe the problem is that people have set their expectations for Obama unrealistically. Yeah, he's running on a "let's make a difference" platform, but he's still a politician.

I hate being in the position of defending BHO - I'm not even a fan of his! - but this story isn't much of a story, and I'd hate to see it get "legs." It's just a cheap shot by CNN.

I still think that my larger point stands-- the Clinton campaign went negative, and the Obama campaign responded.

Elvis:

I really appreciate the civil discourse.

I just can't understand how you have discounted the Obama attacks that led up to the post-February Clinton campaign tactics. I'm not telling you that Clinton didn't attack Obama vociferously once he established front-runner status, I'm just puzzled at the "he only responds" meme that you seem to have accepted.

There was a period, long, long ago in September of 2007 that marked the end of "The Politics of Hope". It's when Barack Obama understood that he would go the way of John Edwards if he did not take up the Villagers' anti-Hillary mantle in full force. He then started a string of criticisms (indiscriminate in fairness or rightwing tone --a "kitchen sink", if you will) by personally attacked her on Social Security (a really nasty thing to do to a fellow Democrat) to the delight of Tim Russert at that month's debate. I wrote a comment to an Ana Marie Cox post about the revolting behavior of the press corps the night of that event:

Well, Edwards tried telling us about the policies he'd be in favor of implementing, and gave us some preliminary plans to analyze.

Whatever the pros and cons were of such things, the majority of folks will never know, because your narrative/personality/trivia-obsessed colleagues let us all down again.

Edwards tried to make news by, well, making news--actually proposing things to do to solve what he defined as national problems, but again, regardless of merit (or lack thereof), the Washington/establishment press corps ho-hummed, yawned and went back to what they know best: writing/talking about nothing.

Weeks went by, and the people who are paid the big bucks to talk about government kept letting Edwards know that he wasn't giving them what they wanted, and they couldn't have been more plain in their demands. "Hillary's the front runner", "Who can beat Hillary?", "Who looks stronger on National Security than Hillary?", etc., etc. They even lobbed the softballs "She Cackles", "got money from a shady Asian" and the timeless "Bill Clinton got a blowjob...do we really want to relive the trauma of Bill Clinton's blowjob, and the terrible cost to our national dignity that would inevitably come due as we were all forced to talk endlessly about Bill Clinton's blowjobs? And did I mention 'BLOWJOBS'?"

Why wouldn't Edwards just get the hint?
People's Beltway jobs depended on writing cute and interesting put-downs!
The excuses everybody needed in order to appear the clever-est on Sunday talk shows had to come from the candidates, or else...else...it might kinda look like they were just making stuff up to talk nasty about!

Then the usual suspects got edgy and irritable (especially after they ignored the wonky, but pretty-boy Edwards in favor of the presumably attack-likely Obama) for deliberately not understanding what they wanted to talk/write about.

I give you the transcript of "Hardball with Chris Matthews" for Sept. 26th, 2007 (although, in fairness, it could be any one of these shows/columns):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21013620/

"CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Is Hillary unstoppable? Can the other candidates still beat the pantsuit off her? "

"SHUSTER: But, for some weird reason, while Republicans are treating Clinton like the opponent, her top Democratic rival is giving her a pass. For Democrat Barack Obama, tonight‘s debate could be a watershed moment. In recent weeks, Obama has avoided any criticisms of Clinton. And he appeared literally above it all in this recent interview with NBC News."

"SHUSTER: Obama‘s soft approach has coincided with him falling further behind Clinton in most state and national polls.

John Edwards has been trying aggressively to chip away at Clinton. And tonight‘s debate comes in the midst of a flurry of attacks he‘s been launching at her over health care reform. "

"MATTHEWS: Let me go to David first, this big question. Tonight, will Barack Obama go after Hillary Clinton, or won‘t he? "

"HOWARD FINEMAN, NBC CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it‘s because he‘s a lawyer by training, but he‘s behaving too much like a judge and not enough like a prosecutor.

He has to have a sense of urgency here. He has to say, she was wrong on the war. You can‘t trust her judgment...
...he‘s got to not be afraid to make enemies. The thing about Barack Obama, he wants to be the best liked and best respected man in the room...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

FINEMAN: But he‘s got to make enemies. He‘s got to be willing to make enemies.

MATTHEWS: Is he too busy?

FINEMAN: And, by the way, if he doesn‘t do it, he is going to fall back into the pack, it‘s going to change the dynamics of the race, to allow other people...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: That‘s the big thing. We established two things. He better go after her. And, if he doesn‘t go after her, he has got to get out of the way, or he will get knocked out of the way."

"MATTHEWS: Let me go to Norah here.

Norah, it seems to me that—do you think that Obama has to take a shot at the—at the champion tonight?"

"...what matters, Chris, is that we‘re reaching the end of this fund-raising quarter. And, while Obama will probably stay neck and neck with Senator Clinton in this quarter, after that, anybody who is giving money is going to want to see Edwards or Obama performing better, or else the money is going to dry up.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I want to go back to something you said.

I remember that great film “Presumed Innocent,” where the prosecutor in Chicago said—he opens the book—Scott Turow—every prosecutor, to be a prosecutor, must point at the defendant, the murder suspect, point at him for the jury to see, and say: He killed her. She killed him.

FINEMAN: Here‘s...

MATTHEWS: In other words, until Barack Obama points at Hillary and say, she voted for the worst political decision in American history, to take our American Army into Arabia, she voted to approve that. She does not have good judgment.

When is he going to point the finger at her and say, she was wrong on the biggest question of her life; she was dammed wrong?

When is he going to point the finger and say that?

I would argue, Norah, if he doesn‘t point the finger and say that, he ought to get out of the way and let someone else get engaged in this debate.

What do you think? "

Well, what could anybody responsible for running a credible presidential campaign think?

Even David Shuster can only bring up Edward's healthcare proposal in terms of "a flurry of attacks he‘s been launching at her over health care reform".

Chris Matthews came out and said what everybody in the cocktail-weenie circuit is "savvy" enough to know, but not often say out loud on national television:
"We're never going to talk about your proposals for whatever problems don't really affect us, so give us a nasty fight, so we can do what we love to do (and do best): shallow play-by-play of the boring horse race!"

I mean, since Edwards has "come out of his corner swinging in this round", have you heard many of your colleagues report on other people calling him a swishy-dishy sissy lately?

That's what I'm describing, Elvis.
I didn't mean to get us off track as to the semantics or origin of the phrase "kitchen sink", I meant to address the bizarre idea that Barack Obama (and his sweet campaign and angelic surrogates and supporters) only respond to attacks (and are therefore by definition justified).

BTW:
Not that it means anything, but this sort of idea reminds me of the rightist line on US war-making: we're always justified in the use of military force, because we're always responding to unprovoked attacks of one sort or another, and it can't be any other way (even when everybody knows the truth).

Again, I'd like to commend you for your intelligent and appropriate discussion techniques, Elvis.

Mr. Nice Guy:

I appreciate your response; I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

It just seems to me that the last thing that democracy has to do with is paperwork. I'll think about your points, though.

He then started a string of criticisms (indiscriminate in fairness or rightwing tone --a "kitchen sink", if you will) by personally attacked her on Social Security (a really nasty thing to do to a fellow Democrat)

Stuart, is this the kitchen sink you're talking about?

"A candidate for president owes it to the American people to tell us where they stand," Obama said. "... because you're not ready to lead if you can't tell us where you're going."

"She's not alone in avoiding answering this question directly — she's not alone in ducking the issue," Obama said. "Because conventional thinking in Washington says that Social Security is the third rail of American politics. It says you should hedge, and dodge, and spin, but at all costs, don't answer."

First, thank you Mr. Klein (we haven't been formally introduced) - I like your reporting and posts very much. I also know that you respect our men and women in the military very much and agree with your assessment of Petraeus (I've been a fan of his since the New Yorker published a story on him about a year before he rose to his current status), in spite of being a flamng liberal who never thought we should go to Iraq in the first place.

Just a small request though, from a distant relation of Jim Stockdale. He and my father were cousins in the same small town in Illinois. While he was a POW we wore his bracelet and prayed. He was to his core an extraordinarily honorable, brave, and decent man. We knew he had smashed his face into a brick wall to prevent his appearance in a Hanoi propaganda parade long before he wrote his book. When I heard he had suffered from Alzheimer's I wondered if it was just bad luck, genetics, or his fierce determination to prevent being used by the North Vietnamese.

Perhaps it would be better to use another example?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Clinton_attacks_Vanity_Fair.html

= VANITY FAIRY ACCOMPLISHED =

If there IS a Q&A, ask Blozo if he knows the difference between charitable Chinese funding and campaign money laundering.

oh, wait, i think I found what you're talking about, stuart.

MR. RUSSERT: When you say that Hillary Clinton hasn’t been truthful, her campaign—and others—will say, “What happened to the politics of hope?” You said that you didn’t want to make each other look bad, that you didn’t want to divide the country, divide the party. Is it consistent to say Hillary Clinton’s not truthful and still embrace the politics of hope?

SEN. OBAMA: Tim, you know, the politics of hope doesn’t mean hoping that people aren’t going to point out differences between you and, and other candidates when it comes to positions. We have been consistent in not engaging in broadsides, not distorting people’s records. Look, we’re running for the presidency of the United States of America, not student council president. That means that the American people have a right to know what exactly we intend to do as president. And if I believe that one of my opponents is potentially going to take the party or the country in a direction that does not meet our challenges, does not take advantage of the opportunities that are available, I’m going to point it out.
_________

Can we at least agree that petty, seven-month old grievances should have a low priority when it comes to party-reunification?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Clinton_attacks_Vanity_Fair.html

Folks, if you IS done reading the Vanity Fair piece, be sure to at least skim the ex-POTUS's wide ranging defense of shuffling the deck chairs on the Clixon legacy's late breaking version of the Titanic -- 99% of the tickets paid using somebody else's money, as their usual.

Really clueless stuff, friends. This sack of JERK thinks people IS still going to buy his articulate charade?

Like a clash of the narcissists, in unreal Time.

And he claims he's helped Senator Shiksa's 2008 campaign, of course. No greater delusion than that, but we can't call him bipolar and race baiting, because we weren't asked.

Oh well.

HILLARY HAPPENS.

One cannot simultaneously make the argument that Hillary is more electable in the general election and claim that she was the victim of sexism in the Democratic primary. The majority of Democratic voters are women. Democrats, in general are probably less sexist than the population as a whole, even if only marginally so.

If she can't overcome sexism in the Democratic electorate, what prayer does she have of overcoming it in a general election campaign? You can't point at general election polls months away from the election, because months away from the primaries she was blowing out Obama on nearly ever poll by double digits and managed to lose.

And seriously, do you think McCain and the right wing attack machine will go easier on Hillary than Obambi was? Obama's campaign attacked her on the war, on lobbyist connections, but he never once brought up any of the many many many many many scandals of the Clinton administration. I don't think the McCain folks would decline that opportunity.

So ... when is Hillary getting out?

Acid J:

Can we at least agree that petty, seven-month old grievances should have a low priority when it comes to party-reunification?

I'm sorry: what the crap are you talking about?

Libs, here's the news:

MCCAIN will win in November.

Obama could pick Jesus H. Wright, er, Christ as VEEP, and he's still going to lose -- as he G-D America THIS well should.

We've been down the I'm The Most Popular Pinhead Kid In Junior Year road before.

Called the Carter and Clixon administrations.

We got 9-11 as a DIRECT result (and do finally read your 9-11 Report, demlix, as you whined for it, though now rarely mention it, for confirmation of same).

Obama yo mama.

Hillary shmillery.

Peas in a spiritually defective, morally bankrupt, foreigner funded appeasement pod.

Some change.

Some legacy.

Some hope.

Empath: One cannot simultaneously make the argument that Hillary is more electable in the general election and claim that she was the victim of sexism in the Democratic primary. The majority of Democratic voters are women. Democrats, in general are probably less sexist than the population as a whole, even if only marginally so.

---------------------

Please point to someone who has said that on this blog. People like Rose and I object to the way in which Hillary has been treated in the media. I'm sorry if that ruffles your feathers, but I would feel the same way about ANY woman -- including a Republican woman -- who has been treated this way.

Just because people acknowledge something that is manifestly true doesn't mean that Hillary did not run a flawed campaign. But those who have been very quick to parse every word for racism out of CLinton and her surragates, seem to be able to easily forgive things like Hillary nutcrackers, or saying that she sounds like your first wife at probate court, or endless examinations of her "cackle," her cleavage, her pantsuits, etc... We got to hear how she is like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction numerous times. We got Fineman and Olberman suggesting that she should be killed. We got Chris Matthews endless parade of Madame LeFarge comparisons and calling the male campaign workers on her staff "castrati."

Just the other morning on MOrning Joe they were talking about how getting her