I think that unless a miracle occurs, Obama will be doomed in the general election if he is nominated. The anomalous participation of the younger voters in Iowa will be hard for him to replicate in November. Perhaps that's why the Republicans seem to be gunning for him.

I think I am going to change my ways and start praying for a miracle.

A decent man whose entire appeal is based on kumbaya speeches. Who campaigns with homophobes, has the weakest health care and environmental proposals, attacks Krugman, etc.

Who would he choose and get to say yes for VP? Edwards? Richardson? Biden?

Kevin wrote: "Am I feeling bitter? You bet ... because of how she's likely to lose. Because the press doesn't like her. "

Sometime you should read Bob Somerby's articles about the press coverage of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign.

Kevin, I think your bitterness is misplaced. If Hillary wasn't so cold-hearted, ruthless, and dishonest, she wouldn't have these problems. Obama is trying to change America with his politics of hope rather than Hillary's politics of fear and dispair. He is seeking change and bipartisanship over statism and polarization. This is progress, and you should be applauding it rather than lamenting it.

If Hillary Clinton had been that passionate all along, if she had defended the Constitution the way she defended herself, or fought that hard against the war or against virtually any of the Bush outrages, if she had shown this passion before, she wouldn't be in the trouble she's in--either with the press or with the voters.

I can't think of a good way to stop this bandwagon effect other than a national primary, and that has its own problems.

No offence to Hillary Clinton: I think she would have made a good president. I will not miss her as a candidate, though. I do think women have it tougher than men as candidates; but there are women who would make much better candidates than she. Just not a great public speaker.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I like Obama. But change for changes sake is moronic.
8 years ago the country wanted change ... and they got a change president without any experience. Now we seem to be doomed to do the same thing again.

By no means is Hillary the panacea ... but at least she has dealt with the 'right wing conspiracy' and she knows all too well what they are capable of. Obama on the other hand, is doomed for a very rude awakening ... if the dems don't start thinking long term we are doomed for another rep in the white house.

The anomalous participation of the younger voters in Iowa will be hard for him to replicate in November.

"Anomalous." Feh. You cynicism and condescending attitude is what got this country into this mess in the first place. Tell you what, since leadership by old people (i.e. baby boomers) has done nothing but screw things up by giving us outrageous wars, greedy tax cuts and impeachments over blowjobs, how about you stop beating up on young people and look in the mirror sometime? Stop acting like the youth don't give a damn about anything. It's only our planet you are polluting with your SUVs and plasma screens and our future you so eagerly mortgaged for tax cuts.

Anyway, you will be proven wrong. You already have been in Iowa, in fact. Get out of the way.

The press doesn't like Democrats. The media are Republican. Some are more or less obvious about it, but with a few exceptions (Olbermann, Moyers), they are culturally and sentimentally playing for the other team.

Assuming Obama vanquishes Hillary, then they will start to pile on him. Dem front-runners will always be playing the media game under the Clinton Rules.

At this late date you shouldn't be surprised by any of this. It's part of the landscape. It's also why some of us have been saying for years that the Dems need to create their own media outposts - it's the onl¥ way they'll ever get a fair shake.

Josh Marshall is fussing about the Mittmeister Meltdown? What's the deal there? As usual in Blogland, he doesn't completely explain his thinking. Because he WANTS Romney to get the nomination as some kind of thank you and apology to the politician for having had to deal with such unpleasantness at a debate? Huhh? That seems to be his reasoning--or at least he doesn't seem to think, hmm, Romney worst Republican candidate, me heap big Democrat, me heapum wantum Chief Many Wives to win nomination.

If that's his thinking, shouldn't the worst (and thus the best) candidate be Giuliani or Huckabee? Or would the glorious patriotic American public thrill to Giuliani? 911!! 911!!

For some reason the press core holds Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans. There isn't a single Republican in the field I would hire to run the local YMCA, but Rudy, Mitt, McCain and the boys are all taken seriously. On the other hand Hillary didn't melt down in yesterday's debate. If anything she handled Obama quite well, but she still lost because she embraced Bill and the past. This is a generational change election. Bill is old news. Bill and Hillary are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I of Bill and Hillary's generation. That means I am old news too. I don't like being old news, but it happens to every generation.

Can Barack Obama really change things in Washington. So far color me skeptical. That leaves John Edwards and Mike Huckabee, but the press have said neither of them have a chance. I have to believe the press because they all talk with one voice. They all have homes in the Hamptons.

In related news, apparently the flinty-eyed independents of New Hampshire aren't quite as flinty-eyed as they'd like you to believe. After a solid year of town halls, coffee klatsches, and early morning doorbell ringing — because, you know, New Hampshirites take their electoral responsibilities so much more seriously than the rest of us — all it took was a few thousand Iowans to flip them from one side to the other in less than 24 hours. Feh.

Beautiful. Coffee's coming out of my nose.

All in all, a wonderful post. You rightly point out the inherent sexism and pack mentality in much of the criticism of HRC, but also correctly note that with Penn's help, she's helping herself implode. And I appreciated your ending with the can't-say-it-too-often observation that we can live with more than one of the main candidates this year. Nice work.

Wow, we've got Robert Novak, Fox News, and now Al saying good things about Barrack Obama. Do they think McCain will stand a better chance against him? I'm guessing the strategy will be to sway the moron vote by having Fox News "accidently" calls him Osama a few hundred times, and others emphasize his middle name at every opportunity.

You are right I wrote "press core" instead of "press corp." It was a Freudian slip. They remind me of a bushel of rotten apples.

Gregor, So Clinton would not be doomed because she draws no one else to the table and has the charisma of a wet blanket? When she has the highest negatives of any candidate running? When it appears that every independent voter can't stomach any more of the Clinton-Bush sequence? When she claims 35 years of her husbands experience as her own? How she decided to get into politics and pushed other hard working, deserving Democrats out of the way in New York so she could run?

Come on, pray if you will that a Democrat wins, and that the Democrat is one who can draw new faces into the party. Clinton won't, and she has no entitlement to claim this.

And, unfortunately Edwards has set himself up as the candidate of hypocrisy and anger, just in terms of how is viewed. That won't work either. Character counts, the ability to move people counts, words matter, and Obama is our best shot.

I agree with Kevin, the way this is happening isn't pretty, but that's not Obama's doing.

The anomalous participation of the younger voters in Iowa will be hard for him to replicate in November.

I really love that three days after Iowa, this is now an established meme, despite Obama having won in virtually every subcategory.

BTW, here's some nice praise for Obama -- from the Weekly Standard. (It's so great to be reaching all the way across the aisle right into the right wing cesspool, Obama! You've done both yourself and your supporters proud!)

Here's a dirty little secret that the liberal blogosphere will probably try to flush down the memory hole in the coming weeks – they didn't like Barack Obama. They had reason not to. When they stamped their little feet over Obama doing something like having a Gospel singer with decidedly non-progressive views on social issues campaign for him, Obama ignored them. That particular storm caused Markos Moulitsas to declare the Obama campaign in the throes of a full meltdown.

Obama incurred the wrath of the progressive blogosphere, and good God, a miracle occurred – he won anyway. Unlike his principal contenders who sucked up to the liberal bloggers at every available opportunity, Obama showed indifference or even hostility to their agenda. His success reveals the liberal bloggers' lack of king-making ability. This particular emperor has no clothes.

A progressive blog-reading audience of roughly 100,000 people has alternately enthralled and frightened the Democratic party for a couple of years now. Obama either saw that foolishness for what it was, or was sufficiently committed to his principles that he refused to pander. If he paid a price at the Iowa caucuses for this “gamble,” it was one he could afford. More likely, he paid no price, as the progressive blogosphere is deeply unrepresentative of the Democratic party rank and file. We learned that much last night.

Special note to Democratic politicians: If you don't feel like it, you don't have to keep attending the Yearly Kos. Your time would probably be better spent raising money or kissing babies.

Oh come on. If Hillary had run as a progressive with a liberal record (such as not voting on the war), she wouldn't be in this position. If she had learned from that mistake as much as Edwards seems to, she wouldn't have been in this position. If she had a progressive foreign policy team instead of a bunch of Israel hawks, she wouldn't be in this position. If she had ran in 2004, she probably would have walked away with the nomination.

I didn't think she sounded shrill at all. I love me some honest reactions.

Most viewers understand there's a lot of subtext to these things, even if they're not quite sure what the subtext is. I love to see those rare flashes of honesty. And I completely disagreed with Richardson when he said this is the kind of bickering that turns people off. No, what turns people off is dishonest, disingenuous nitpicking, name calling and gamesmenship . I want to see real, honest discussion *and* disagreement about policies and records.

And no one's mentioned it, but I thought Clinton landed a nice blow to Edwards when she pointed out that his patients' rights' bill never passed the House. Maybe it was just a glancing blow, but a blow all the same.

i'm surprised that kevin is so "establishment" oriented as to promote Clinton. Clinton is this year what mondale was in 1984: almost irrelvant, with history having outpaced her. i feel sorry for her, but i do not feel sorry for America if she lsoes the nomination.
Obama is Bobby kennedy of our generation, and with luck, he WILL make it to the White House. He is the future of America.

Kevin,

I would be interested for you to explain when you have the time why you support Clinton.

Seriously. I'm just curious, not trying to start an argument.

(It's so great to be reaching all the way across the aisle right into the right wing cesspool, Obama! You've done both yourself and your supporters proud!)

frankly0, that piece says nothing in favor of Obama, reserving all its criticism for the netroots. Since most of the progressive blogosphere has been even less positive about HRC than about Obama, I'm not sure what point you think you're making this time.

Kevin, I would be interested for you to explain when you have the time why you support Clinton.

Why the hell do people keep saying that, except for the twisted perspective brought about by their own partisan preferences for some other candidate?

Anybody who's read Kevin's remarks has seen him wax and wane almost from day to day about his preferences.

After Obama won Iowa, Kevin went on and on about how watching Obama's speech induced warm and fuzzies to run about his body. (I, of course, nearly puked, but, whatever.)

frankly0: Much as I hate to admit it, The Weekly Standard is right on this one. So what's your point: That the right wing is pumping up Obama because they think he'll be easier to knock down later? Epicycles within epicycles . . .

I'm with Kevin in being pissed off at how Hillary is pilloried. I would actually like her, even with the bad rep, if she wasn't so corporatist. I'm mostly pissed off that Edwards is being ignored, though. Obama stands for nothing but empty symbolism. How wonderful that White America can vote for a sell-out, no matter what the color of his skin! That will sure take the edge off our inevitable disappointment in his lack of accomplishments.

I wish Hillary and Obama bin Liberman would take their campaigns to the floor of the Senate for a filibuster of FISA (maybe promise them there will be cameras present). They could drone on as long as they like about nothing in particular, and I would find that 100 times more inspirational than any of their poll tested platitudes.

shortstop, please, just read the piece with a sensitive ear.

Clearly, the man is implicitly praising Obama for spurning the progressive netroots (or as he calls them, the "nutroots").

If you can't hear it, I just don't know what to say.

Kevin, it takes not only good policies but a good messenger to deliver them. It isn't just the press that thinks that she is a bit shrill. I read little or none of the anti-Hillary screed in the press, avoid watching talking heads on shout TV, personally find her policies are generally OK, voted for Bill twice, don't care about whether she should have divorced him, I could care less if she had never been in the White House as 1st lady etc., etc. BUT... I have trouble listening to her, she comes across as shrill to me. That is probably unfair, but I can't help that.

"...an idiotic nominating system that gives a bunch of Iowa corn farmers 20x the influence of any Democratic voter in any urban area..."

That is such a stereotype. I'm sure nearly half of the caucus-goers were hog farmers.

I just don't know what to say.

Mmmmmhmmmmm, and yet you keep talking.

I'm going outside to enjoy the 51-degree weather, woo hoo. Will catch up on your latest litany of petulant rants against Obama later, tater.

Spot on. I'm an Obama supporter to my toes, but I thought her first response was just fine. I don't mind people arguing about policy and she's got reasonable things to say. Her later "reality break" intervention was misjudged, reminding us that she has no feel for emotional timbre. But again on substance she was plausible. But God forbid journalists should write up substance.

Will catch up on your latest litany of petulant rants against Obama later, tater.

Yeah, and it would be nice to catch a break from the your Heatherish remarks.

I think reports of the death of HRC's candidacy are a tad premature. The polls are showing a mixed bag of results. A couple have Obama with decent leads in NH, a couple have them tied. Even if she only takes second, it's entirely conceivable the margin will be tight. And then she's got Nevada -- a state where she does extremely well with the hotel unions. I think she's got the non-competitive Michigan situation in the bag, IIRC. If I were her at that point I'd concede South Carolina, and begin immediately focusing on the Super Tuesday states. The ultra-concentrated fish bowl effect of Iowa and New Hampshire -- where a single charismatic candidate can come in and sweep all before him with his personal magnetism -- won't be the same. The geographic spread is simply too wide. Super Tuesday is essentially a national primary, and Clinton still leads national surveys. A number of the contests moreover don't allow Independents and Republicans to vote. In the end, it's still about delegate counts. If she can keep her head, make smart criticisms of her opponent, and convince Democrats that a rush to the nomination isn't in their best interests (a perfectly reasonable position, I'd say), she could still yet wake up on February 6th leading or tied in the delegate count.

Clinton's biggest problem is that she's simply disliked by millions of people. And yet, I'd say in taking on the mantle of the underdog there's an opportunity for her, because by being forced to be scrappy -- rather than the regal uberbitch the press makes her out to be -- she has a chance to connect with voters in a more sympathetic fashion.

All this is predicated on having a decent financial situation. I have no idea what her burn rate is. If her money's on the verge of running out, it probably really is all over. She can't write her campaign a check like Mitt Romney. My guess is her national network and her husband's connections can still be leveraged into significant campaign contributions, but that's only a guess.

Oh, and Penn has gotta go.

The Weekly Standard wants to give some cover to their fellow Kewl Kids in the "liberal media" like Joe Klein and to the DLC politicians who go along with the Republican Party. The netroots needs to be rendered irrelevant. The Obama praise is just convenient.

To the contrary, Hillary's relative decline is part of general decline in support of the base, and other Americans, for the Republican-DLC status quo.

Kevin, I have one word for you, entirely appropriate since this is Epiphany:

AMEN! To EVERYTHING you said!

Im with Kevin in my disappointment with the way the press has ganged up on HRC. If anything, the endless summer and fall of Democratic candidate debates had convinced me that HRC would have handled the presidency just fine, which was the important unresolved question in the process. Of course the debates showed that Obama and Edwards could keep their wits about them, too.

Because any time a woman raises her voice half a decibel she instantly becomes shrill..

This is one thing that has surprised me about this campaign. Not the Press so much as the large number of Progressive leaning citizens who call her shrill ad nauseum. In her so-called latest shrill moment, Clinton was responding to very obvious putdowns by Edwards and Obama. She really needed to respond strongly, and she did.

The fact that she was able to point to two specific accomplishments that are helping New Hampshire voters in a very material way right now should be points in her favor. It was a controlled response that was not shrill or angry, just firm, strong, and serious.

I don’t get that. I do get the support for Edwards and Obama. I also get the Press reaction because they love simplified themes. But I don’t get the unbridled hostility of so many Democrats and Progressives. That’s a little weird and a little unattractive.

I'm with you Kevin. It breaks my heart to see this decent, good woman pilloried by the gutless slugs of the mainstream media. And she isn't even my first choice as the nominee. Also, all that calm down, lower your voice, fingers on a chalkboard crap is sexism pure and simple. I, like millions of others born without testicles, have heard it all our lives.

The press gangs up on Hillary and Huckabee and excludes Ron Paul and Edwards. This is part of the game. Someone as experienced as Hillary Clinton of all people should have figured out what to do by now.

"Am I feeling bitter? You bet. Not because Hillary Clinton seems more likely than not to lose I can live with that pretty easily but because of how she's likely to lose. Because the press doesn't like her."

Man, the losers always get to blame the press. If HRC had won, we would have Obama people blaming the MSM for annointing HRC early and giving her inevitability. If Edwards had won . . . etc.

Don't get me wrong. The press are awful. The L word in the media is not 'liberal' - it is 'lazy.'

But back to the main issue: HRC got beaten, plain and simple. She had plenty of mindshare (more than anyone else) and could easily have made her case. She did, and she failed.

BTW, the corn farmer dig about Iowans demonstrates that this particular post isn't worth the electrons with which it is encoded. Is it unfair that IA gets so much influence? Yup. But KD is just way bitter. Take ten, man. Obama did well with the professors and professionals and women and young and rural . . .etc. My bias has been that the Clinton supporters had a sense of entitlement about their candidate. Was I right?

I agree that the press doesn't like Clinton, but I think it's absurd to suggest that would be the reason should she lose. In fact, it's the kind of whining from somebody who has an emotional investment in a candidate and isn't able to see the bigger picture. At the end of the day it's pretty hard to deny that she represents the establishment. She came into the campaign as the establishment candidate and she herself was happy to play that up when Mark Penn told her it would help her. But voters, at least at this moment, don't seem to be in the mood for that and that has nothing to do with the press.

Kevin, you can't have it both ways. You cannot simultaneously chastise the MSM for attacking Hillary, while also parroting their contempt for "Iowa corn farmers."

Also, all that calm down, lower your voice, fingers on a chalkboard crap is sexism pure and simple. I, like millions of others born without testicles, have heard it all our lives.

A-fucking-men. To the point I respond with a "Fuck you! Don't tell me to calm down! You get pissed off!"

Oh - and when someone calls me a bitch - I say "Thank you!"

I rather liked jasper's argument that the Clinton campaign is not dead yet, but I don't agree with it. Super Tuesday is a national primary, but it's a primary that will be greatly influenced by the early contests. Already we are seeing movement in New Hampshire merely on the basis of the Iowa results, and this is in a state where they have extensive experience with all the candidates.

If Obama wins NH (not certain by any means), I imagine we'll see substantial movement in the national polls by the end of next week. A lot of people seem to have never believed Obama had a chance. Given that neatly falsifiable obstacle, Hillary's numbers might prove quite soft.

Why the hell do people keep saying (x), except for the twisted perspective brought about by their own partisan preferences for some other candidate?

That's rich.

I didn't think she sounded shrill at all. I love me some honest reactions.

I'm with you, Scruncher, that's an urban myth MythBuster could destroy in 30 seconds that people are turned off by a strong, honest exchange. What turns them off is the numbing banality and predictability of so much political posing.

As always, there are multiple factors contributing to a presidential candidate's losing (or winning), all fusing together across the network of millions of voters. I agree that HRC has it tough being a woman (but tougher than being a black man with the middle name "Hussein"? Really? You think people aren't ready to see Barack Obama as "too angry" if he doesn't present himself with great care?).

It seems to me that Hillary Clinton could not help running as the Clinton restoration candidate, for Bill Clinton's third term as it were. I never saw this point made so explicitly as last night when she basically took (her share -- arguably more -- of the) credit for the fiscal discipline of Bill's terms, but for good and bad this was her unavoidable fate. I believe that it's the single biggest reason she was the frontrunner (and if not, then why?), and it's working against her now. A third Clinton term is not what most voters want, even those (like me) who liked the first two.

No vocal tones are going to trump that at this point, IMO.

A lot of you Hillary-philes just don't get it. Hillary = Nixon. She arouses visceral dislike in the opposition party and is loved by few in her own party. Should she win the nomination, a lot of Democrats—yours truly included—will hold their noses and vote for her. Just like a lot of Republicans held their noses and voted for Nixon in 1968. That doesn't mean we won't look for an alternative while we can.

Add Clinton-Bush fatigue (does this country really want or need 36 consecutive years of seeing members of these two families in the presidency or vice-presidency?) and this whole sense of entitlement Hillary brings to the table, and they may give some insight into why she's stumbling. That, and the lies about experience—given the test many of you apply to Hillary, it would seem Laura Bush also has more experience than Obama—make her travails understandable. And this whole entitlement deal really irks a lot of people. It would seem many Americans are just a bit tired of rich, connected people who somehow think they can effortlessly slide into our highest elective office.

The people of New York may not have a problem with some folks just up and deciding they are entitled to one of New York's high offices, but it may be that folks in the rest of the country apply a different test.

I would be interested for you to explain when you have the time why you support Clinton.

Chris Brown, I don't get the impression Kevin is supporting Clinton any more than I am. What he opposes is the petty meanness of the press that just pick at the poor woman like an open sore. It's disgusting and a grave disservice to our democracy. Enough already. It's why I like millions of others get our news from the web and hold the mainstream media in contempt for the gutless slugs they are.

I do not consider Senator Clinton to be shrill. I do believe, however, that she lacks an innate ability to connect with folks on a personal level, such as has her husband and, I think, as does Obama.

The Clinton campaign has been inept. I think the big mistake the campaign has made was including Mark Penn. The campaign should throw him and his sneering, porcine countenance off the bus. Better yet, under the wheels of the bus. The guy is a total pig.

The other grave error of the Clinton campaign, I think, is her wedding to the DLC and her adherence to the DLC campaign play book, which, Bill Clinton's elections notwithstanding, doesn't work.

Besides I think Senator Clinton is viewed by an electorate obviously hungry for change as yesterday's news.

a lot of people seem to be making a hell of a leap or (il)logic when they misconstrue the motives of people who would prefer we not pile on our own candidates and do the Thuglicans dirty work for them as automatic support for Hillary. The two things are not the same.

I have trouble listening to her, she comes across as shrill to me. That is probably unfair, but I can't help that.

Doc,

You're probably completely unaware of your sexism on the voice issue, but, believe me, women aren't. I was married for a very long time to a man who unconsciously changed the radio station EVERY time a female singer came on. He had no idea he was doing it. He denied it was sexism. Yet he would rant and rave and wake loud enough to wake the dead and swear that he never raised his voice once. But, you guessed it, I was the shrill one. You could probably use a little consciousness raising. Just a suggestion.

Man, it's just so wrong to say that Hillary is going to go down because of the press corps and society's alleged allergies to "shrill" women and Iowa.

Hillary is a craven politician who generated wafer thin support by slavishly tying her bland opinions to the poll of the day and using the media (that supposedly brought about her downfall) to generate the idea of inevitability.

Hillary has failed because of Hillary not because of the media or gender politics or any other boogeyman she would like you to bring up. Her failure is a failure of courage and resolve, of character.

Would all the Clinton supporters complaining about the media-granted influence of the Iowa caucuses be complaining if she had won in Iowa, solidified her inevitability narrative, and then coasted into New Hampshire with a comfortable lead?

Iowa's disproportionate influence sucks, but in a way that's unfair to whoever loses, not in a way that's uniquely unfair to Clinton.

Here are some other takes
There's no doubt that we have the worst media on the planet. Pravda was more truthful and less partisan than the clowns like Matthews and his ilk. I email these people almost on a daily basis with corrections to their misstatements and propaganda, but their arrogance blinds them to their own prejudices.

....leadership by old people (i.e. baby boomers) has done nothing but screw things....? at 1:18 PM

....One of the contributions made by the Boomer generation appears to be the expansion of individual freedom. Boomers often are associated with the civil rights movement, the feminist cause in the 1970s, gay rights, handicapped rights, and the right to privacy.[10]
Baby boomers presently make up the lion's share of the political, cultural, industrial, and academic leadership class in the United States. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, born within sixty days of each other in mid-1946, are the first and second Baby Boomer U.S. presidents, and their careers in office illustrate the wide, often diverging, spectrum of values and attitudes espoused by this largest American generational group to date....

It is certainly fair to condemn the Bush branch, those social conservatives, and being war mongers, but given the fact that boomers are a voting population minority out-numbered by social conservatives among others, your criticism is misplaced. It's a shame that subsequent generations preferred to wear logos of corporations who earned their profit by exporting American jobs to low wage countries than become activists themselves.

.... mondale was in 1984: almost irrelvant....Chris at 1:27 PM

Oh - and when someone calls me a bitch - I say "Thank you!"

LOL, Blue Girl, you're my kinda woman.

The Clintons have shown in this campaign that in many ways they are a step behind the times. Mark Penn, for example. I hope to see Hillary have a role in the Obama administration; after all she's been through, she'll make one hell of an elder stateswoman, and I bet she'll be gracious enough to accept that role.

Sharon, would that be cranky, outspoken, and fed-the-fuck-up?

Are the MiaSMa hounds picking as hard on all those insufferably snippy Republican debaters as they have, are, and will on Hillary? Of course not. They are pimps.

tyrannogenius

Kevin, thank you for pointing out the unbelievable favoritism of the press. They're not even pretending to be objective. And that's a disgrace.

attacks Krugman,

I know I'm coming late to this one, but I really hope I've read that line for the last time.

Krugman is a big boy and I'm sure his feelings weren't hurt. But if he's going to get paid the big bucks for writing a national column, then he certainly can put up with some occasional criticism.

Besides that, I appreciate the fact that Obama is willing to take on a major pundit as opposed to the Republican candidates who kiss Rush's ass.

a lot of people seem to be making a hell of a leap or (il)logic when they misconstrue the motives of people who would prefer we not pile on our own candidates and do the Thuglicans dirty work for them as automatic support for Hillary. The two things are not the same.

What she said.

Why Hillary is likely to -- and DESERVES to -- lose: Because she takes gobs of money from the Insurance Lobby, the Telecom Lobby, the Banking Lobby, Rupert Murdoch, etc. (and Edwards and Obama have rightly called her on it).

Just one example of why this makes a difference: In the 1990s, when the Republican Congress passed a bankruptcy "reform" bill to make it harder for people to escape credit card debt, Hillary lobbyed her husband to veto "that awful bill." In 2005, Senator Clinton receives gobs of cash from the banking industry and suddenly decides "that awful bill" is worth voting for.

We need to change this corrupt system. Hillary is part of the problem.

Hillary has failed because of Hillary not because of the media or gender politics or any other boogeyman she would like you to bring up. Her failure is a failure of courage and resolve, of character.

It breaks my heart to see this decent, good woman pilloried by the gutless slugs of the mainstream media.

Okay, I really have to get outside and away from the computer, but before I do:

Many on this thread are falling into the trap of either-or re Clinton's fortunes. It is perfectly possible, in fact pretty much indisputable, that Clinton's situation is a mixture of unfair press criticism/sexism and missteps of her own making. Those arguing for one to the exclusion of the other (notice that Kevin got it right and didn't do that) are oversimplifying the situation terribly.

As a semi-aside, I am both an infuriated observer of the random and often unthinking sexism thrown HRC's way for 15 years and a person who really dislikes hearing her voice (note I did not, nor will I ever, call her "shrill" or "angry"). I also shudder from head to toe when I hear the voices of GWB, Chris Matthews, Ted Kennedy, and Bradley Schlozman--in fact, of many more men than women. Badly modulated voices simply grate, and Clinton's got one. I don't think it's in question that we hear more about hers grating because many of her listeners suffer from a double gender standard, but I'd be careful about assuming that all negative reaction to the way she speaks can be attributed to bigotry.

(And as a preemptive to those who may feel inclined to start in on my innate and unexamined sexism, I have no Y chromosomes and my feminist credentials are strongly established here.)

Bill Bradley:

"Barack Obama has a unique opportunity to create the broadest possible coalition of people who will be interested in change in the positive sense," Bradley told ABC News in a phone interview. "There is a difference between a leader and a manager. He's a leader. He has a vision."

A leader vs. a manager (with very high negatives). The choice should be pretty clear.

Thank you, Mike, I really needed that. Thanks for putting the influence of Baby Boomers into perspective. Talk about biting the had that feeds you. These adults fresh from childhood owe my generation a lot. Do they think it was easy? When I was their age, I had to hold my mouth right and quit high school if I didn't keep my knees together and got pregnant. Or I had to go to some quack who demanded sex plus $500 to give you an abortion. Those were the good old days alright.

Well shortstop, I wish I could go outside with you, but my two "X" chromosomes have to go clean out the fridge...

Back in a bit...

Your last paragraph makes mush of what was, until then, a superb post. There are no silver linings here: the press corps is still in control, still manifestly incompetent and corrupt, and because of that very fact we don't know what kind of candidate Obama really is, and we're not going to find out until his media gravy train ends, if then.

Who were the "better" candidates in '04, what made them "better", and if they were so good, why did they lose? Why was Kerry so lousy? Any answer to these questions instantly becomes suspect, because the vast majority of the data we have to formulate an answer with we got only after said data were filtered through the press corps -- which you yourself have attacked. If you're going to try to balance stuff out by tacking on some kind of "see, I'm not a pessimist" crap to the end of a post, at least make it better than this.

So it was all Mark Penn's fault?

Christ.

In other words, Hillary will lose for exactly the reason that everyone predicted she will lose two years ago.

Seems strange to be "bitter" about that.

Also it's bullshit to equate Hillary with "women" generally. Unadulterated bullshit, if you'll excuse the pun.

Al: "If Hillary wasn't so cold-hearted, ruthless, and dishonest, she wouldn't have these problems. Obama is trying to change America with his politics of hope rather than Hillary's politics of fear and dispair."

That's right, Al. I bet you're just chomping at the bit to jump into that voting both and cast your vote for Sen. Obama next November.

And you know something else, Al? There are also lot of people who would probably pay good money to see you and Hillary alone in an empty room, with you half-naked from the waist down and tied backward to a wooden chair, and she's holding a can of Crisco, an aluminum baseball bat, and a large bag of half-rusty 2" ball-bearings.

I agree with you about Hillary Clinton, but I don't think Obama is decent. Did you hear him say to her that she's "likeable enough"? That was mean. And his whole schtick about bringing the country together is tiresome. What's more, it doesn't tell us about how he will govern -- likely, badly! Because he doesn't have the experience, he'll bungle everything from Iraq to global warming to health care. And then where will we be?

No, if Hillary goes down, it'll be in a dignified way, having made the honest argument that being president is not about being a superstar, it's about governance, and preferably good governance. But the people will get the president they deserve!

"The people of New York may not have a problem with some folks just up and deciding they are entitled to one of New York's high offices, but it may be that folks in the rest of the country apply a different test."

Don't be so quick to assume what the people of New York may or may not have a problem with. It could be that they--or, rather, we--didn't have all that much choice in the matter. (BTW, the same was being said of RFK back in the '60s. We're used to that kind of thing.)

That aside, Nixon Did It is quite astute in comparing HRC with RMN--the bubble, the hatred of the press, etc. And while I'm on the subject of the Trickster, though there has been some revisionism on his record, with John Dean and George McGovern, among others, comparing him favorably to the current incumbent, don't forget that he had a Democratic congress to deal with. If Nixon had had Bush's congress, I'd hate to think where he might have gone.

...but I'd be careful about assuming that all negative reaction to the way she speaks can be attributed to bigotry. - Shortstop

Thanks for that statement. Perhaps the word "shrill" isn't the best one to describe how I'm perceiving HRC. There are times when she gets feisty in a debate that gets me to pulling for her. I think what Chris Brown mentioned above is a more accurate reflection of what's going on:

"I do not consider Senator Clinton to be shrill. I do believe, however, that she lacks an innate ability to connect with folks on a personal level, such as has her husband and, I think, as does Obama."

Kevin had a thread here several months back where he was talking about the differences in her persona on and off camera. Maybe there is something useful there that can clarify this a bit further.

But I don’t get the unbridled hostility of so many Democrats and Progressives.

I think it's the war, specifically, and enabling Bush, generally.

For six years the left blogs have been boiling mad at this conduct. For six years Clinton, along with other Democratic "leaders," kept it up. Clinton made the calculation that she had more to less to lose by alienating the Democratic base than by opposing Bush/Cheney and the right-wingers. She made the wrong calculation.

But don't expect anyone, especially anyone connected with Clinton or the Democratic establishment, to acknowledge that her support of the war cost her, permanently, the good will of large portions of the Democratic base.

Just one example of why this makes a difference: In the 1990s, when the Republican Congress passed a bankruptcy "reform" bill to make it harder for people to escape credit card debt, Hillary lobbyed her husband to veto "that awful bill." In 2005, Senator Clinton receives gobs of cash from the banking industry and suddenly decides "that awful bill" is worth voting for.

Jim, you're right, and that was the beginning of the end for me too with Hillary. Nevertheless, I do have great respect and admiration for the woman and would vote for her to be President in a heartbeat. I don't understand these Democrats who wouldn't even if she is their first choice, she's a good choice. As Blue Girl said somewhere we really have a deep bench. We should be proud.

Okay, preview is my friend.

Should be:

She made the calculation that she had less to lose . . .

The debate did reinforce my image of Edwards. The machinations are transparent. And what does "likeable enough" mean?

WTF???
AL in his 1:13pm comment likes Obama, and he made a similar comment yesterday.

Obama has crossover appeal, that's for sure. It is beyond reason (us stinkers might say irrational) but holy cow. Al and Andrew Sullivan like a left wing civil rights lawyer!!!???

Again, WTF?

Like Kevin, I prefer my politics a bit more grounded in the real world, but a kickass candidate is fine by me so long as he is a Democrat.

Kevin is right that Hillary was fine in the debate. The fuss is manufactured and sexist.

i know hillary will do poorly, because mrs. skippy, who, heretofor was considering voting for her, announced yesterday that hillary was so "calculating," and that's why she won't vote for her.

Tell you what, since leadership by old people (i.e. baby boomers) has done nothing but screw things up by giving us outrageous wars, greedy tax cuts and impeachments over blowjobs, how about you stop beating up on young people and look in the mirror sometime? Stop acting like the youth don't give a damn about anything. It's only our planet you are polluting with your SUVs and plasma screens and our future you so eagerly mortgaged for tax cuts.

Get out of the way. --- by ? at 1:18 pm

Wow! Talk about smearing with a broad brush. It was the Republicans who lied the country into a war and cut taxes at the same time. It was the Republicans who kept up a drumbeat for the impeachment of Clinton, when most voters were against it. It is Republicans who are blocking all progressive legislation in Congress, including anything that would slow down global warming. It is the Republicans who are totally responsible for gridlock in Washington.

Obama has been very smart—and also cynically manipulative—in convincing uninformed, naïve young people that Hillary Clinton represents that kind of past.

It was kind of sad watching FranklyO trying to reason with posters last night on this board, trying to tell them what economist Paul Krugman has said about Obama’s plans. His mistake was assuming that young people read any newspapers at all, let along the NY Times, and even know who Paul Krugman is. I wanted to tell him that what he was doing was like trying to reason with parrots. (Some of the parrots are sincerely repeating what Obama tells them. Some know better and are just cynical.)

Sadly, we have a generation of young people who don’t read. This makes them susceptible to anyone who wants to lead them with jingoistic phrases and platitudes. Every morning, I take my newspaper to coffee houses and read in-depth articles, even though I also get a lot of news from the internet. I am usually the only person in the place doing so.

I lead a simple life. My car is 17 years old, but I walk more than I drive. I don’t have a lot of techno-gadgets. My 20-inch TV runs on rabbit ears. My 5-year-old computer uses a dial-up modem. I have no debts. I have saved for the simple retirement I am living.

Now the younger generation is telling me to get lost. Well, I guess I can finally stop worrying about the country like I have during the ascendancy of the Republicans during the last 30 years. I can relax. I can stop voting for the schools, even though I don’t have children, and stop volunteering in the schools and writing letters to the editor in support of the schools. I can stop worrying about young people being sent off to die in wars for a lie. I can even stop voting.

In our state, the same idiot has already gathered enough signatures to put several nasty measures on the ballot to hurt people next November. (He hires an army of naive young people to gather his signatures.) Some are usually designed to force the teacher’s unions to spend enormous amounts of money and energy to defeat them. He will just keep doing it and will probably succeed, since young people don’t bother to read about issues in depth.

One of Hillary’s problems is that she cares deeply about issues and tries to educate people about them. Young people see her as a teacher and turn her off. They want the person who doesn’t make them think too hard.

It is all just really sad.

"Am I feeling bitter? You bet. Not because Hillary Clinton seems more likely than not to lose — I can live with that pretty easily — but because of how she's likely to lose. Because the press doesn't like her. Because any time a woman raises her voice half a decibel she instantly becomes shrill."

I'm with you 100% on this one Kevin. The journalists who follow the candidates really do behave with the maturity of high-school teenagers. And they just don't like HRC because she's the prissy smartypants at the front of the class. She may (or may not) make a good president, but it has nothing to do with whether she's a prissy smartypants or not.

Shortstop, woman can have a hard time with women's voice as well as can men. We've been conditioned from the beginning of time to associate a man's voice with authority. How long did it take to get a female news anchor? I'm not making this up. If you were to dispassionately examine the facts in the manner of Media Matters, for instance, I'm sure you'd discover at least a 100 negative references to Hillary's voice compared to every one reference to a male candidate's voice. In fact, Obama has a beautiful voice, but you don't even see that referenced as often as you do Hillary's voice. It's a serious problem for every woman in public life. HRC is not an actress. She hasn't worked on her voice the way Kathleen Turner has and she shouldn't have to. We just all need to get used to hearing women's voices in public and get over it. They're different from men's. So what.

Chris Brown: "The other grave error of the Clinton campaign, I think, is her wedding to the DLC and her adherence to the DLC campaign play book, which, Bill Clinton's elections notwithstanding, doesn't work."

Doesn't it, now?

I would therefore challenge you to take a good hard look at the actual gist of Barack Obama's proposals concerning health care, Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- the good senator's soaring, 5th Dimension's "Aquarius / Let the Sunshine In" c. late 1960s-style populist rhetoric notwithstanding -- and then come back and tell us how those proposals differ distinctly, if at all, from that which is contained in the DLC platform.

Hillary Clinton seems more likely than not to lose

YEAH!!!!!

I think it's the war, specifically

This all sort of comes down to whether you believe in the public recantation of an incredibly successful trial lawyer or you can extrapolate the words of a state legislator at an anti-war rally into an actual vote under the hypothetical scenario in which he actually gets to vote on a bill (regarding not a declaration of war but some vague crap about serious consequences for non-compliance).

I think it's more about happy forests and saddam attacking the twin towers.

I don't watch cable news, for my own sanity's sake-are the usual suspects spinning this as a meltdown? Hilary's my #2 choice behind Obama, but I thought it was a great response-very passionate and real, with some nice supporting facts.

I'm with Kevin in that I just don't understand where the vitriol against her comes from. Well, that's not completely true-clearly her stepping outside the expected 'adoring spouse' role in the '92 campaign irked the righties.

Hey, Illume, have you ever heard of something call "advisors"?

Now shaddup, concern troll.

FWIW, I thought Hillary's response was pretty good in context, but I wasn't bothered by Howard Dean's aaargh!!! last time either. I think the sharks smell blood, and Hillarybots like KDrum should expect more of it for as long as she sticks around.

I second the complaints that Hillary has gotten too cozy with the moneyed establishment, and not just as formal lobbies etc. Hillary objected to raising the income cap for taking out FICA for Social Security. Then Obama rightly smacked her down on it, and people could see what was what.

Sharon: We just all need to get used to hearing women's voices in public and get over it. They're different from men's. So what.

Give me a break, please. Since I just told you that there are more male than female voices among the ones I find grating, I really don't think it's a question of my "getting used to" female voices.

I've been quite up front about acknowledging that much of the criticism of HRC's voice is gender-based, but you apparently won't consider that anyone who finds her voice annoying might not be motivated by bigotry. That kind of knee-jerk dismissal--the "either-or" thinking I referred to earlier--is not a credibility enhancer.

Kevin, I think your bitterness is misplaced. If Hillary wasn't so cold-hearted, ruthless, and dishonest, she wouldn't have these problems. Obama is trying to change America with his politics of hope rather than Hillary's politics of fear and dispair. He is seeking change and bipartisanship over statism and polarization. This is progress, and you should be applauding it rather than lamenting it.

Posted by: Al on January 6, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Al?! Will wonders never cease! Al, yes Al (whatever he really is), has gotten on the Obama soul train! Hooo-raaay...
Oh wait a minute - As suggested upthread, maybe the Republicans want Obama to be nominated because they think he can be beaten. It must be a trick ...

Will catch up on your latest litany of petulant rants against Obama later, tater.
Post by: shortstop

Yeah, and it would be nice to catch a break from the your Heatherish remarks.
Posted by: frankly0

Rrwwrrr! Cat fight! Heh.

I can live with Obama or McCain. It's win-win from here on out.

This pretty much says it all on the question of the need for a transformative politics--an evaluation that a substantive thinker like Bradley has come to:

http://xpatriate-greetingsfromlafayettepark.blogspot.com/

"Barack Obama, a decent man and a terrific candidate..." who is also going to lose.

I've seen Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fullani run together, but now I've seen everything: Hillary is attacking Obama for being too pro-abortion rights. Here's the link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/CampaignStandard/default.asp#3842

Shortstop, you miss my point entirely. I'll confess I don't like her midwest accent. It's harsh to my southern ears, but how is that relevant to ANYTHING? Obama has big ears. How is that relevant? Edwards has a chronic tic with his tongue. How is that relevant? Kucinich is short. How is that relevant? Huckabee looks like Gomer Pyle. How is that relevant? Giuliani has a lisp. How is that relevant?

Bye all. Must return to New Orleans for work tomorrow. May be back later, but I've neglected waaaay too much. It's been real.

And a goon comes to praise McCain - a warmonger who supports torture. I guess once you've determined that killing twice as many innocents (including women and children) as "bad guys" in an extra-judicial killing is okay, then it is a tiny step to go all out and support undermining the United States via torturing people who have been convicted of nothing and who are probably telling their torturers nothing because they, like you, know nothing.

Sure Obama will be a better president than the Iraqi dictator Bush, but then so would a syphilitic dog - at least it wouldn't terrorize the populations of foreign nations for the entertainment of swaggering jingoistic goons.

'I think it's the war, specifically, and enabling Bush, generally.'

James, I don't know about Democrats as a group, but for me personally, Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards' AUMF vote on Iraq indicated to me serious, incomprehensible shortcomings in both candidates. Unfortunately, I like a lot of what Edwards is saying today but can't fully support him because of my persisting sorrow/anger/outrage about those prewar days and who wasn't smart enough and/or nonpolitical enough to vote against the AUMF. For me, I'm afraid to say, those AUMF votes have become a one-issue exclusion standard for choosing a primary candidate.

I thought Clinton was great last night (LOVED her anger), and that Obama was full of his usual vague buzzwords. Edwards turned me off when he turned on Clinton and sided with Obama. It just turned me off. Obama's empty, "bi-partisan" rhetoric is going to get pretty old by November. I guess it's over, but Clinton still gets my vote on February 5. I'll vote for Obama in the general, but I think he is going to be a big disappointment to progressives.

McCain - a warmonger who supports torture.
Posted by: al-heavy

McCain sez...Abusive interrogation tactics produce bad intel, and undermine the values we hold dear. Why we must, as a nation, do better.

Before anyone complains, Hillary's mailer said Obama is soft on abortion rights in order to raise the issue of Obama's vote against the act protecting babies from abortion mill overbooking and negligence. Another cocaine dealer play on her part -- you sure can pick'em Drum.

heavy,

McCain wrote the law passed 90-9 against torture, he's done much more to stop injustice in the world than you have.

Rusty ball bearings? That's cold!

Journey safely, Sharon. i look forward to the next time you share your outlook with us. I find it a breath of fresh air!

Let me get this straight, a privileged white woman is losing because of the horrible sexist attitudes of Americans, but everyone's giving Obama a break?

I guess racism isn't a problem anymore. To say that Hillary had it much tougher than Obama vis-a-vis sexism and racism is completely ignorant.

Yes, I know no one has explicitly argued this, but that is the underlining current to most of the Hillary supporters. She's going down because she's a woman, and no other reason. Obama is going up because he's black. But he'll never win because he's black.

The salient point: nobody forced to hire Mark Penn. That choice speaks volumes about here likely approach to governance--all Washington establishment, all cuatious and incremental. So does her cookie-cutter, consultant, and focus-group approach tgo running. Clinton is a very smart woman and extraordinarily diligent, but has never built a compelling case for her candidacy. It was all built on inevitability and the (not so quiet, on hears) threat of retribution for those who don't go along. She and her advisors never realized that voters were, inevitably, going to going to take a close look at her. And she just doesn't ahve the political skills to function at this high level (as her husband assuredly did).

I'm tired of hearing the complaints about Obama's "kumbaya" speeches, and his speechmaking ability more generally. Words do matter. Rhetorical skill is built on habits of thought and mind. (That's why rhetoric was the center of classical Greek education.) That we're seeing the finest political speeches since RFK or JFK is testimony to the quality of the man. Anyone who isn't moved is deaf the romance of politics.

The trouble with having so few women (and/or minorities) in positions of power (political, corporate etc.) is that the few who are there become representative of the larger group. Things take on a meaning that they wouldn't in other context. If we already had lots of women presidents, liking or disliking Hillary would just be about her, not about women generally. Here's some subtext, though. I think people (especially younger people) do assume that we will elect a woman president eventually. Hillary isn't the "last chance" and if she loses, her defeat won't close the door on anything. As a result, rejecting Hillary is rejecting *her* not rejecting all women, all women in power etc...or at least it shouldn't be. The key to getting a female candidate who is *electable* is to broaden the pool sufficiently so that someone who is capable and well liked can get to be governor or senator and be a in a good position for a "promotion". That situation still needs some improvement, but it is moving. Simply being a woman isn't enough to win over other women or people generally (see, Condaleeza Rice, Elizabeth Dole etc.). If everyone liked Clinton to begin with, her gender would be icing on the cake (which is somewhat the situation with Obama), and would add a certain historic meaning, getting people misty eyed, etc. However, if enough people didn't like Clinton, they'd just as well have some other woman get the historic "first".

I really though that show of emotion by Hillary saved her butt in that debate, as well as from irrelevancy since the momentum was clearly against here there, so if she gets some media side effects about her shrillness or viciousness, that's something you just have to accept, even though it's ridiculous.

I was ready to write her off in that debate until it looked like she got mad and made some great points about experience and actually making change, so at least from a debate standpoint (and I used to be a debater), I thought that was brilliant, and I was very impressed.

As for the overall debate, I was impressed with all four candidates. I can't imagine a Republican debate could ever get this good, though we still need some more debates to actually explore the differences rather than just talk about them along with aggressive framing.

Edwards won the debate in my opinion, Obama held his own and won high marks for dropping the "transparent and accountable" framing at the perfect time, Hillary made her points and showed some emotion (good thing for me), and Richardson was personable, hilarious, and the best at spinning the most important progressive issues into nearly every discussion, as well as emphasizing that we need to work with people and governments, in a proactive manner, rather than just framing everything as us reactively intimidating people after problems strike.

HRC got into this knowing that the media was a big deal and knowing the individuals in the press corps and how they behaved individually and collectively.

It's hard for me to feel sorry for HRC walking into a situation that could be reasonably anticipated.