I don't see much difference between Obama's post-partisan approach to Republicans and Clinton's triangulation. They both amount to the same thing. Nor is Obama some sort of party outsider, when you look at his key supporters and backers (Daschle and the Chicago machine, for example) the battle was between one part of the Democratic establishment vs. another part. Victory for either does not indicate "entrenched interests" losing in any way except to other entrenched interests.

Frankly, I think Obama could very easily lose this election. I'd really rather he didn't. But it is absolutely in Clinton's personal best interest that he does lose, and he'd better do something about that. Bribery is probably cheaper than warfare and hatchets can be buried in skulls, or bribes can be paid off in ways that give prestige but remove party power, after he's president.

I agree that sending Hillary to the Supremes would be a great idea. It removes her as a threat while rewarding her. Bill can be ignored, except that Hillary may not feel that way.

Thinking back just a year ago, conventional wisdom would say any major party nominating an African-American for either of the top two slots would be committing suicide. This wisdom may still be right. The only thing counterbalancing this reality is that Obama isn't entirely black in the traditional, urban image. He's something of a Tiger Woods presence who can appeal to all races, and he has a personality and eloquence that adds to his allure.

Is this enough to overcome white prejudice? Not really, not for the millions who will disguise their unease with any hook they can grab on to ("America's not ready for a black president," or "this pastor Wright thing makes me unsure about him"). So he starts considerably in the hole with a huge part of the electorate that is unable to look beyond his skin.

The only good thing here is that Bill Clinton won the presidency twice without white voters, and Obama may be able to counterbalance this loss of a major voting bloc with the addition of millions of young voters who don't think racially. So there is hope.

His second danger is that the Clintons are now orphans in their own party. But this is of their own doing. They became DINOs. Hillary borrowed Republican talking points, strategies, policies, and tactics. She went to the dark side, for me at least, when she endorsed McCain over Obama - and let's not parse this too finely; when she said McCain would make a finer CINC, that was an endorsement and a complete abandonment of her party. It is no surprise that writer after writer at NRO is now championing Hillary as their sort of politician.

It is up to the Clintons to decide what party they belong to. Obama can't do that for them. If your analysis is correct that she wants to position herself for 2012, she has an enormous task ahead of her winning back the black support she expected at the start, and winning us urban liberals who are now disgusted with her. On top of that, the zeitgeist is against her. She and her husband represent good times in the 90s, but that came with a cost as we now see with the collapse of the financial markets. Bill Clinton does bear some responsibility for the adoption of unfettered, cowboy and crony capitalism that has damaged this country. This form of capitalism led to declining living standards for the middle class, and even though we are not statistically in a recession, it feels that way to over 80% of the population. That's an extraordinary majority. This is the essence of the Obama phenomenon - the thing he has tapped into. Hillary could not because she is from and of the old political order that is being swept out. So for her to gain the nomination in 2012, this desire for social and economic change must reverse itself, as must the animosity of the Democratic base. That is a very tall order, and Obama would do well to steer clear of helping her do that.

In fact, let's take this zeitgeist thing one step further, and postulate that is what is really happening is a fundamental political realignment in the U.S., in which the Republicans are now consigned to minority status and forced to concentrate their resources on their base in the South. This reordering of our politics will continue to strengthen as ethnic diversity, and white minority status, becomes the basic political reality. If the Republicans have any sense of survival, they will begin to realize the desperate condition they are in. We saw that today with McCain when he spoke about immigration and deliberately snubbed the Buchanans, Tancredos and others who have made white fortress America their calling card. In that respect he and his advisers understand they cannot win this thing as a white minority party, and they must at least appeal to Hispanics.

In this realignment, both parties are going to be tearing themselves apart as they deal with the power struggles involved. It just so happens the Democrats are facing it now, but next year watch the Republicans begin the process. Then we'll be able to understand that this is a national political realignment in motion, and the Democrats will see why Obama should not be catering to the Clintons to keep them in a party that has moved beyond their triangulation and catering to the Republicans.

p.s. I disagree with your view that Obama is just another political hack with no real difference from Clinton. He does have old-line machine operatives at his side, and it is true these very same men were running Clinton's campaign in 1992, but he is his own person. From a partisan point of view, he is the first Democrat in two or three decades to throw Republican tactics back into their face. He calls it for what it is, rather than apologizing constantly for perceived insults. This doesn't happen all the time, but enough to give the Democrats a chance to regain the national megaphone, even in the media.

reading into Obama what you want to see, not what's there, frankly. Hope I'm wrong on that, but I don't find him particularly inspiring, nor do I find his policy proposals generally either better or more progressive than Clinton's. Even if in a few states there has been a Limbaugh effect the fact is that almost half the democratic electorate voted Clinton.

Bill won without getting the majority of the white vote. But as with any other group you can't just write it off - if he'd got a few less percent whites he would have lost.

I don't think Hillary is that damaged. If Obama loses the general it makes her argument for her, after all. And Obama has kissed Republican ass on occasion as well - let's not parse all his stuff about Reagan and so on too much either.

When you keep pushing the Wright story because "everyone is talking about it and questions need to be answered"; when all your campaign stops in the south are at white communities; when you denigrate Obama as the black candidate who can only appeal to African-Americans and only got where he is because of sympathy; when you claim that only Hillary Clinton and John McCain have what it takes to protect the country - you're appealing to decades if not centuries of prejudice that places blacks in an inferior position to whites and not patriotic enough to be trusted.

She knew what she was doing. She lived through the same prejudice as a woman, but it didn't stop her from dragging up the vilest associations, innuendos and fears in order to damage him with the voters. When you consider the transformational affect Obama's candidacy is having on the African-American community - something no one ever dreamed they would see in their lifetime - how can Hillary and Bill be forgiven by black voters?

She could have honored his candidacy, avoided all the subtle racist appeals, and kept things focused on issues. Other candidates were able to do that, but she chose a road that would make Lee Atwater jealous. All the people who started out supporting Obama but willing to vote for Hillary now have a very different feeling for her which will make it impossible for her to obtain the party's nomination in 2012. No Democrat can win without the black vote, and she has lost it forever, and that doesn't count all the other Democrats who have watched the primary soiled by the politics of personal destruction.

As to the policy differences - there is the Iraq war resolution, Kyl-Lieberman, the flag burning amendment, the gas tax holiday, nuking Iran if it attacks Israel, just for a start. In a lot of areas she has put herself in line with the Republican Party, and that is yet another reason she doesn't deserve the nomination.

Personally I would like to see Obama a little less cozy with the Republicans in the Senate, and the fervor he generates on the campaign circuit is bound to lead to problems and disappointments. But I'll take that over someone who has gone out of her way to inject Republican policies and tactics into the Democratic Party.

is at the point where his polling should be at its highest. He is the unrivaled Republican Nominee, and the Democrat side is in a divisive polarized battle for nomination that is near 50/50 - though Obama has it locked up now.

And Yet McCain cannot poll higher than about 48%. He is a candidate that appears to be locked in somewhere below 50%, and who has a history of gaffes and explosive temper at critical junctures of his campaigns. I just don't see him in office. This guy is a known quantity and has been out there unrivaled and can't even get a plurality by himself.

That is extremely telling. Further, in the Republican party, 26% say they will NOT vote for McCain. Why? Because he is not viewed as a conservative. Among that crowd Hillary is viewed as more conservative, which they say in derision.

Elections are definitely decided by one or two points and by one or two states, and if you look at the map, it is very clear the Democrats have worked the map to their advantage.

Add to it all, you have food and energy inflation, a failed war in Iraq, a failed war in Afghanistan, a weakening dollar, and an apparent decline in American prestige.

perhaps. Certainly this is a year where ANY democratic nominee should win. But I believe in never underestimating the Democratic ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

is probably all it takes to swing the vote. And as Numerian points out and as I should have noted, the other important demo is married women. A lot of them vote Pub because of their husbands but would probably have crossed the line for Clinton. Doubt they will for Obama. The problem with the choice between Clinton and Obama was that both of them really do have their own base, there's overlap, sure, but there are also differences. If Clinton had won, I'd be giving her the same advice "what's Obama's price?"

would be nuts to take majority leader, she would just continue to be used as a punching bag for Obama supporters. I could see her as a justice and Obama would be stupid and petty to not take full advantage of Bill's diplomatic skills.

like another poster said, that would be too boring for Hillary. Also, there are too many in Washington who have snubbed her during this election campaign, Pelosi being one of them. Why would she want to work with these people again? Maybe we should find out what SHE really wants.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

with your sentiments Tina.

As much as I disliked Clinton's campaign choices, I have the utmost respect for her mind and spirit. Although I doubt she can easily set aside another run for top office, she would be an amazing asset for the USA in the SCOTUS. My perception of her character is fairly negative these days but if she puts forth that fiery spirit into getting Obama elected, sanity might slowly return the the old US of A.

As skeptical as I have become, I still want the Republicans out. Democrats may be 99% as bad, but 1% leveraged correctly can still cause a shift for the better.

Is this a new campaign strategy? So Hillary isn't a monster, bitch, whore, witch, vampire etc, afterall? The Obama supporters can just plaster on a new persona onto Clinton to help achieve their goal? Oh, the hypocrisy of it all!

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

she no longer is a republican :D

from dailykos

or don't, as your mood takes you

however this, from Kos himself - the man at his worst:-) is just embarrassing.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

a royal asshole.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

The only facts we have regarding young voters is that they are signing up to vote in the primaries for Obama, they are organizing networks of other voters, and they are showing up to vote. Exit polls and surveys show they don't care about his race.

Your observation about older white voters not being able to vote for the black guy is the same point I am making, so I don't disagree with you there. Traditionally, young people do not vote in large numbers, or large enough to offset the older voters. So all we have is hope that a less racist group of young voters will come to the polls and offset the racially fearful white voters.

I have heard similar comments about the "white race," though it is usually that Obama will give jobs to blacks over qualified whites. How many of these voters are Republicans anyway? Most of them. My point has been they never supported Bill Clinton yet he won twice. This sort of racially sensitive voter is the Republican base. It is a staple of the Deep South and found in rural and suburban areas all across the U.S. While we can bemoan the fact that Obama has not convinced these Republicans to vote for him, let's also remember they don't like McCain either. He is already reaching out to Hispanics and betraying the white voter. Even yesterday some 20% of Republican voters went for Huckabee as a protest vote against McCain. McCain has serious problems within his own party, maybe moreso than Obama because these voters weren't Democrats in the first place.

My larger point is that all this upheaval is part of a national electoral realignment that is going to tear apart both parties as a large white voting block that can't look beyond race heads to the grave. And by the way, some portion of those racially tolerant young white voters 20 years from now will turn just as racially intolerant as their parents, so this problem will never go away. It's just that there will be fewer white voters overall to assure that only white candidates get elected.

Speaking as a 57 year old white guy, if identity politics is the fate of America, then let's figure it out right now. Either Obama or Clinton would be a big risk, let's take the winner and give it a shot.

Keep her away from Harry Reid's seat. She has shown herself to be every bit a Republican as Lieberman, and would be disastrous as a Senate leader for the Democrats. Obama would get nothing done.

I agree that Hilary could be disastrous and Lieberman-like IF the President was a Republican.

But, we all know that Hillary is an opportunist above all else. If the Democrats have a solid majority in the senate as well as the Presidency, it would be political suicide for Hillary to adopt a Lieberman stance. He's already crapped his bed. He's out in the next election.

And, there's also the possibility that Hillary could lose her senate seat if she doesn't get on board with Obama. A lot of New Yorkers are disenchanted with her right now. She needs Obama just as much, if not more, than he needs her.

Hillary isn't an idiot. She's also a survivalist. If she plays her cards right, she enjoy a Ted Kennedy senate life. She may even be Majority Leader. But, if she attempts to screw Obama, she could lose all of it. His movement is the tsunami, not hers. She can either ride the wave or be drowned by it.

get carried away ..... his movement is the tsunami, not hers. He didn't win the big states, did he? A string of caucus wins with suspect ethics is what propelled him into the lead. That's hardly a tsunami.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

"suspect ethics" thing?

Take a look at this. I've read posts on several blogs from people with similar experiences. There's also this, the Texas Caucus fraud.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

I can't here you!

But seriously folks, YUK! I have not heard this before.

Record rally attendance, record small donor contributions, record local organization, record voter registration, record interest in politics.

What contributed to this tsunami? The Bush-Clinton Dynasty repulsion; the incompetence of the Bush administration; Iraq; the economy; the belief that our voices would be heard in Washington; a multi-cultural symbol; someone who understands and utilizes current technology and the zeitgeist of America right now; an inspiring and eloquent speaker; a person with immense organizational skills; a person who puts his country above his ambitions; and, of course, a formidable opponent.

No one cares when our own President speaks anymore while millions watch in person or on YouTube speeches and rallies given by Obama. That's a huge shift from just a few months ago. I consider that a tsunami. It was the result of a seismic shift in our attitudes and priorities; it happened quickly; and it's been huge.

You forgot to mention this: The MSM and left wing blogosphere's complete biased reporting in favor of Obama with rampant sexist and misogynistic articles and comments. Race baiting of the worst kind. (Where would Obama be without the black vote?) And don't forget Obama's objection to have the votes in Florida and Michigan counted. I guess you could say, he's selective about who to include in his philosophy of inclusion. And what did that Obama mouthpiece, Donna Brazile say on CNN last night? (it's been brushed off the official transcript) "We don't need the vote of the blue collar workers". I suppose she enjoys fixing her shithole herself too then, just like Axelrod. They have no need for those blue collar plumbers, do they? Oh, the 'inclusion' of it all, just gets to me.

Finally, one person's inspiring and eloquent speaker is another person's jerk.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

Your take on the Florida and Michigan thing is a bit foaming at the mouth.

To blame Obama for any of the debacle is absurd. The nastiness of the situation has been compounded by the Clinton campaign. It was an unfortunate turn of events when those States went against party rules. It was unfortunate that ALL the candidates agreed IN WRITING that the consequences for Florida and Michigan would be no campaigning in those States and no delegates. Clinton turned it into a wedge that has caused a bad situation to become potentially ruinous for the Democrats.

To accept to have those State's delegates reinstated after the fact that only Clinton had her name on Michigan's ballot is no less disenfranchising than how it currently stands.

To do so with Florida, while not as bad, still is inequitable, since none of the candidates had the option to campaign in Florida, advantage was heavily in Clinton's favor just on name recognition alone.

Who you like and who you dislike is personal and I think it is great that you share those feelings with all of us.

But really, rethink the venom of specious arguments. Save it for the real stuff. I think that all public figures need critics. All of them are flawed and fuck up. I respect you and thank you for your contributions and I hope to see more of it from you in a focused and fair manner.

... of history imagined and eloquently rewritten. Obviously far too late in the day for laborious corrections. And so it goes ...

chances at a re-do were mostly spiked by the Obama camp.

There's plenty of blame to go around. The real question is this - how many votes will the screw up cost in the general? It's awfully hard to be president without Florida or Michigan.

chances at a re-do were never truly in the cards based on financial and organizational difficulties. I think the characterization of "mostly spiked" is a bit of an exaggeration, but mostly true.

As for the answer to your question, I think it may very well be another example of the Democrats losing an election that was only theirs to lose.
So, yes, I agree there is plenty of blame to go around and I for one am disgusted with how this has all played out.

A McCain presidency is likely IMO and while Clinton was the one firing off the most shots, Obama himself did provide a lot of the bullets.

The one shred of hope I still have is provided by the Obama campaign.
The fact that a virtual unknown came onto the national scene and defeated one of the best known and most well connected candidates to run in decades, counts for a lot in my book. There is a slim chance that Obama can win it without Florida and Michigan. More importantly, if Clinton bows out on June 3rd, Florida and Michigan can be seated without fairness being an issue. It may be too little, too late but it has to be done in some manner or this whole race may bring about the end of the Democratic party.

a focused and fair manner? Strange that is ..... I've never heard you object to all the venom spewed at Clinton by various bloggers over the course of the campaign. Oh yes, the Obama rules are different, right? Pardon me if I react a bit strongly to the fact that Clinton supporters are treated as mere puppets on a string that are now expected to joyfully jump on the Obama bandwagon without as much as an apology or an admission of atrocious behaviour from the Obama camp. Piss on them all, I'd say. How's that for subtle language? (BTW, I learned to talk like this here, from the guys).

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

what passes as civil discourse these days ;-)

Kinda shocking, isn't it? I'm surprised myself at the language. To think that my girls were never allowed to say the word F*ck in my presence. They still never do. They'd be totally floored if they knew what kind of language I use here sometimes..... but it's the devil that makes me do it :)

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

I just was making a suggestion of how you could get your point across more effectively. I prefer conversation to accusations, but my perception may not be in line with your intention.
I don't care who's camp you are in, that is your choice.

Combative arguments rarely are effective, all they do is feed the fire.
If that is your intention, fine

the accusatory and combative Obama supporters change their 'Hillary hate' language to one that shows respect for Hillary for the strong and unique leader she is without them coming across as abject opportunists who need her to help Obama become the next president?

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

There has been a lot of nasty spittle flecks all across the net on both sides of the race. I certainly read some things that pissed me off.
When veiled ( and not so veiled) misogyny pretends to be discussing "electability" and not the fear of a woman bringing a woman's perspective to the most powerful office, it makes me cringe. While nastiness abounds on both sides, the sexist attitudes were more overt than the racist attitudes. That one fact is, to me, of great concern. Women are the largest block of voters. Women put Bush in the White House, Women put Bill Clinton into the White House.

I think that Obama needs to address this subject. While he wasn't responsible for the web comments that were so nasty and vitriolic (god I hope not, at least), they still leave their stink on him.
If he can delve into the issue of sexism with the same kind of thoughtful intent that he confronted the race issue when the Wright crap first came to light, maybe the Elephant in the room can walk away.

If people start airing their concerns, their hurt feelings, in an open and constructive manner, then just maybe we can see America grow up a little bit. Politics should be about ideas. Politics should be about all of us working for each other. But people on both sides turned tone deaf out of passion for what they felt America really needed right now in it's time of crisis. I felt that both sides had a point and each offered unique things, sadly it the narrative never got into the important factors. It was all identity politics. I preferred Obama because of skills that I perceived and the narrative was about "cults"
Clinton supporters declared the importance of experience and the shout box claimed her experience was sleeping in the White house. Nasty stuff that just creates division. As the campaign turned more negative, the voices on both sides got more shrill.

How does this rift get repaired? I don't really know, but I would say that it starts with honest and open discourse. Try to see things from other perspectives and if we disagree, let those disagreements be discussed. The biggest thing would be to not lump all supporters of any one or any issue into the same category. respond to people one on one and not against the grievance we have with certain elements. The less we ascribe qualities or beliefs to people based on what camp we perceive them to be a part of and the more we respond to what they are actually saying, the more we are engaged.

It is a damn good question you pose. I think that if Obama's campaign can not find a solution, he isn't fit for office. If it comes down to a brokered convention I think it is Hillary's nomination. That is Democracy in action.

I think that Obama needs to address this subject. While he wasn't responsible for the web comments that were so nasty and vitriolic (god I hope not, at least), they still leave their stink on him.

His silence on this subject while knowing full well about the Hillary hate on the Obama blogs makes him complicit.

If he can delve into the issue of sexism with the same kind of thoughtful intent that he confronted the race issue when the Wright crap first came to light, maybe the Elephant in the room can walk away.

After flicking Clinton off his shoulder in a video that was proudly provided by his campaign (which they have wisely removed) after the ABC debate, the Elephant in the room is not going to be consoled that easily, let alone walk away. To be quite frank, after I saw that video I completely lost respect for your guy. I don't trust him - he certainly will not regain my trust with 'just words' in an inspiring speech. Don't tell me you respect me, show me.

But people on both sides turned tone deaf out of passion for what they felt America really needed right now in it's time of crisis. I felt that both sides had a point and each offered unique things, sadly it the narrative never got into the important factors. It was all identity politics.

The narrative in this campaign was unadulterated misogyny of the worst kind. Some Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves. The Clinton blogs I visited never spoke of Obama the way that Obama blogs spoke of Clinton. I've never witnessed such hate before. Quite shocking, really! If you demand civilized discourse, please address your peers first.

Clinton supporters declared the importance of experience and the shout box claimed her experience was sleeping in the White house. Nasty stuff that just creates division.

The imagery you use is what creates division ... shout box, her experience was sleeping in the White house and equating it with nasty stuff

You've got to be really deranged to deny that Clinton's time spend at the White House offered her great opportunities that provided her with some experience in foreign affairs. The only nasty thing here is your interpretation.

How does this rift get repaired? That's a problem the Obama camp and its supporters will have to solve. As I've mentioned in another post, the wound inflicted on Clinton supporters by the MSM and the left wing blogosphere is very deep. I hope that the open and honest discourse you suggest takes place will not have come too late. Good luck!

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

Thanks for the focused response.

I won't reply to all of it, but I will reach for a little more clarity.

1) You completely misread my meaning on the "shout box" comment. I should have phrased it more clearly. I meant that Clinton's supporters felt the HER experience was important and that the response from the comment cowboys was that her experience was nothing more than sleeping in the white house, That negative and dismissive characterization was exactly what I was calling nasty.

2) my read on the video of Obama brushing off his shoulder was completely different than yours. My take on it was that when mud gets tossed around in campaigns, sometimes you just have to dust yourself off and move on. If you got something else out of it, well that is your interpretation. I am a bit baffled as to why that was offensive to you, but it was and it is good to bring it up as an instance where you perceived disrespect. Trust is something that has to be earned, for sure.

3) I absolutely agree that the personal attacks on Clinton are abundant and I find it despicable, but they are not my "peers" and it is insulting to bundle me in with them.

3) The idea that Obama is complicit in nasty comments being made, because he is not playing web sheriff is vacuous. I think that is beyond unfair. It is exactly the logic that Republicans use over and over in campaigns. Guilt by non-denial. It is a logical non-starter. If you feel that way, then you feel that way and I won't try to devalue what you feel, but I will suggest that you consider the logic of that statement and apply it to a number of similar concepts and see how it sits with you

It is obvious to me that the resentment you feel is powerful. I am sorry you feel that way. Some of your points are quite valid. When we feel passionate about something, any perceived harm to what we are passionate about is magnified. I salute your passion.

Please do consider that the more resentment you harbor, the more likely that smaller and smaller things will effect you to a larger and larger degree. Don't feed the hate, transcend it.

I really think transcend was really the wrong word to use here ;) lol

However you do remind me of this post from an old member:

Good example of a pro-Obama blogger playing the divisive game, Feb. 26:
.
Breaking: Mondale Insider, Old White Lady Carries Water for DLC Insider, Old White Lady
by Veronica Corningstone
.
link
.
I can't imagine Obama would have condoned that, it sort of the anti-thesis of what he sells. That's that point, though. I think that many pro-Obama bloggers are the ones taking bait from the Hillary campaign, bait that's really standard stuff, and doing damage to Obama with it. Spinning not only themselves silly but causing damage in the process. Spinning has to be done by pros with message discipline. All these "volunteers" are just doing nothing by causing confusion and damage. I always hoped that the blogosphere could be used to deconstruct spin, instead I see it being used to create incompetent amateur examples in mass quantities that are not only doing damage to candidates they are purporting to support, but to the party itself.
.
Posted by artappraiser
March 6, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink

how she calls it "bait from the Clinton campaign" thus smearing Clinton even while rapping pro-Obama bloggers on the wrist. That's Arty, trying to live up to her own advice and do spin professionally.

but I thought it would be wrong to edit her comment, I do however agree with the idea that many bloggers and posters put themselves in the drivers seat and have done more damage than good to their preferred candidate. Credibility and respectable sources have gone out the window in the rush to be the first with the lastest outrage. How will they(bloggers) complain about Drudge in the fall when they have used him as a source on their front pages no less to diss a fellow democrat? In other words there is a lot of blame to spread around concerning the nastiness on the net, but how many will admit to being part of it.

1) Sorry about that

2) when mud gets tossed around in campaigns, sometimes you just have to dust yourself off

His behavior in the video was a direct response to Clinton's superior performance in the ABC debate. It wasn't just the dusting himself off part that offended me but the entire video. The words he used, as well as his body language and facial expression were intended to belittle and ridicule Clinton to cover for his own underperformance at the debate. What my eyes saw was a mean sexist little guy who acted like a total jerk. My opinion of him remains the same. Thank you for allowing me my own interpretation

3) If that is so, I find it odd that you felt the need to jump on me when I used inflammatory language about Obama and his supporters but remained silent when countless invectives were thrown at Clinton and her supporters. Where were you when I was told I was full of shit and had mental problems because I supported Clinton? I'm anxious to know which excuse you'll come up with.

4) If Obama wasn't aware of the super misogynous slant of the MSM and the left wing blogosphere he would not have acted the way he did in the above mentioned video. Instead of acting like a decent and respectful man, he chose to perpetuate the blatant misogyny.

Please do consider that the more resentment you harbor, the more likely that smaller and smaller things will effect you to a larger and larger degree. Don't feed the hate, transcend it.

Me? Feed the hate? Transcend it? Hmmm, I don't know how to interpret this. Is this a polite way of telling me to shut up? Rise above the hate? What will I find if I rise up? Will it be good? It somehow reminds me of Maya Angelou telling Hillary to "Rise Hillary, rise". I've seen a few posters on Clinton sites end their comment with this slogan. Maybe that's why Hillary is able to ignore the hate that's twirling around her. It requires exceptional strength. "Rise Hillary, rise".

Anyway, back to your guy. I'm afraid you'll be wasting your time if you wish to change my opinion of Obama. But maybe one day, Obama will do something that might change my mind.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

than the nuke Iran save Israel HRC approach:-)?

- just ringing your chimes, Adrena- I'm sure you've posted on all that before. I have not attempted to follow O-H "discussions" here so as to preserve what little is left of my sanity.

Cheers,
--mole

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

you sure like to follow me around to offer one of your usually 'loaded' comments.

Cheers to you too :)

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

certainly don't intend that. Apologies if it somehow seemed that way.

I've been posting very lightly lately and had been on the thread previously just to put the Ian cross-post comment on, so read all the comments.

-mole

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

on, she got damn near 50% of the vote in many places. She is at zero risk of losing her Senate seat.

and you can find the numbers easily enough - married women vote Republican. Unmarried women - both divorced and never married vote Democratic.

Hope is not a plan. A plan is working all the angles. Getting Hillary onside is one of the angles. Maybe Obama can win without her. But he's more likely to win with her.

His was a victimless crime and I don't think he faced any civil action because of it. His impeachment resulted in a finding of innocent, if you accept that as the reverse of a failure to convict for high crimes and misdemeanors.

So I don't think he legally is guilty of breaking the law. He did give up his license at the bar, which means he cannot practice law, but that is a matter of livelihood and a disgrace, not a crime. There is no requirement Justices either have to be lawyers or be able to practice law.

On that basis he can certainly be a Supreme Court Justice. President William Howard Taft served afterwards as Chief Justice, so the precedent is there.

comments. Even I don't read them all.

About both Obama and Clinton. The Agonist has been a font of civility in this campaign compared to Daily Kos, where Clinton supporters have been hounded off, or other sites where the anti-Hillary vituperative is shrill and demeaning all around.

This has been a feature of the netroots from the beginning - it's surprising what you can say when you are anonymous. But it used to be Repugs against the Dimmicrats, or some such sophomoric name calling. Now it is all centered within the Democratic Party, generating a lot of emotion and hurt feelings, and not easy to repair for people who live daily on the political blogs. Fortunately, that is still a small minority, so maybe the damage is not too great overall.

to be happy when this nomination battle is over. It has brought out the worst in people, mostly, not the best. Lost one friendship over it, as far as that goes, which is when I decided I'd had enough. While I have a slight preference, I just don't see the difference is enough to be worth paying even the smallest price for one's preference.

I'll be glad to see the blogosphere go back to bashing Republicans. I think most folks will get over the nomination battle, but there is going to be some scar tissue in some cases. People really have said some things that are going to be hard to forget (Kos himself not least amongst them.) People on either side don't seem to get that many of the partisans of the other nominee really really strongly identify with their candidate. It's not just Obama who has fanatical followers, Clinton has them to. To these folks an injury to their candidate, an insult to their candidate, is done to them as well.

probably going back to the Greeks.