But wasn't '68 that close because Goerge Wallace drew significant support, presumably away from Nixon? That without Wallace in there, Humphrey gets his ass handed to him?

Practice makes perfect...

I agree, Kevin. One thing is for sure: this last week was Obama's toughest challenge as a candidate yet and he stumbled. He needs to engage Hillary in the fight and get off of the defensive without tarnishing his positive image. Otherwise, Hillary will use tonight to build real momentum.

In the end, they WILL end up pulling together to disable McCain, and that will be a corner we have to turn to save the country. Anyway, how many people remember primary divisions in even the previous cycle?

The last time there was a bitter convention fight the Democrat lost a close and winnable election, Richard Nixon was elected, and the Vietnam War raged on through Nixon's entire first term of office. And this is supposed to cheer me up?

Robert Earle-Wallace was a Democrat. He took more votes from Humphrey than Nixon, according to any analysis I have seen. Are you from the US, because that is fairly basic?

At the end of the day-- with Hillary' momentum back after eleven losses, she should push on to become the nominee. After all, she won having introduced a lot of negatives into the campaign.

Some of the new voices that have joined the party (or most of them) are, will be turned off. Thanks to her, the GOP is guaranteed a third term in the White House. Enthusiastic voters wanting change now have no choice from either side (both the same --left and right).
My motivation is going, and will ebb fully by November. Guess the ending! MCain struts to White House with ease!!

Dead on, Kevin. I have to say that, as someone who has annoyed many people by being a Clinton apologist over the years, how Hillary (and especially Bill) have conducted themselves throughout this contest has ranged from moronic to shameful. How sad is it that I was actually relieved when the worst that Hillary threw at Obama this time around was the 3am ad? Plus, I do think Obama has to come up with a rebuke of Clinton's foreign policy argument--he might get there but he ain't there yet. If he can't deflect it now it will get much harder by November.

This being said, I'm still not quite sure why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. Mathematically, a Clinton victory is impossible, and everybody but her seems to realize that. It's beginning to seem (at the risk of sounding like Andrew Sullivan) that her campaign has become more about catharsis for Clinton than anything else.

I don't honestly mind the questions being asked. It would be nice if we could move past some of the silliness though. Every question either Clinton or Obama asked was asked in a milder form than would have been the case if asked by McCain.

Well said, Kevin.

What is with all you "Hillary must quit now" 'ers? Did you really think that shit would work?

So basically what you're saying is that if the primary process had not been so contentious, Humphrey would have won?

Is that supposed to be a comfort Kevin?

"By keeping Dems in the spotlight, it might even help them."

I was wondering about this too. Might just suck out all the oxygen, leaving nothing for McCain. All the drama will be on our side. Kind of like when no one watches the NBA Eastern Conference championship, and considers the true contest the western Conference championship. The when the Big Finals Games come, nobody cares.

I always new Nixon would find a way to have one more comeback.

Even from beyond the grave.

Hillary and Barack will announce they will both be happy to be VP to the other. =)

1968 was a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Did you really live through it Kevin?

Alex F is spot on: Nixon, VietNam, Kent State, etc. all followed.

I agree that Obama flubbed the campaign over the past few days. But Clinton has fractured the activist/netroots community. Whether that translates to the GE in lost votes/activism remains to be seen.

If Obama's going to effectively attack Clinton, it has to be on foreign policy issues. He needs to counter her "experience" argument by pointing out her poor judgement on a number of issues (Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman for starts.)

In any case Obama needs to put Clinton on the defensive. Hammer away at her for Pete's sake!

What is with all you "Hillary must quit now" 'ers? Did you really think that shit would work?
Posted by: elmo

Never said that. Seems to me that Huckabee didnt just quit either. Takes balls not to quit, like Renzi or that guy Craig

Finish the story, though, Kevin. Humphrey almost won - and would've won if the general election were a week later - by breaking completely with LBJ, taking the Vice Presidential seal off his plane, and essentially calling for an immediate end to Vietnam, particularly an end to the bombing. Then LBJ obliged by actually calling off the bombing and floating a possible peace deal the weekend before the election (Kissinger brokered a deal with Nguyen Van Thieu to keep him away from the peace talks, telling him Nixon would give him a better offer).

In other words, Humphrey went hard left - not something I'd expect either Clinton or Obama to do. And he got an October Surprise, which can't be assumed.

well said, kevin. all this hand-wringing will be long forgotten come fall.

well-reasoned big picture perspective is exactly what i like about this blog.

Takes balls not to quit

Spoken like a true wingnut slacker. Let me guess...you're not a quitter? Like Craig...

Yeh, sure, democrats got their ass kicked in '68, thank God Nixon came along an screwed that up. =)

Spoken like a true wingnut slacker. Let me guess...you're not a quitter? Like Craig...
Posted by: elmo

Make up my mind elmo, quit or not quit? Your oscillating

"Hillary must quit now" 'ers? -elmo

Dayum elmo, you TRY to flame me for saying she has balls and hasnt quit?

WTF?

Your story would have been a lot more comforting if it had ended with "And the Democrat won!" But of course we all know how that long national nightmare turned out.

Your intent is noted, but the effect is the opposite. I shudder to think of a never-ending Middle Eastern War brought on by successive Republican presidents...

Your oscillating

Just doing my job.

I know your joking, elmo, but it has always amazed me that people will work for polticians.

Kinda like selling your soul isnt it?

The worst thing Hillary threw was not the 3 AM ad - though I hate fear-mongering crap because it does land deep in people's psyches - but her two creepy qualifiers on the 60 Minutes question about Obama = Muslim. She knew exactly what she was doing. The only answer is the one Obama gave: "It's not true and it's offensive to Muslims because of what it is meant to suggest." But Hillary passed on that and let the poison hang out there, just in case it might help her.

The question for me is what do I do as a Democrat who doesn't want candidates in my party resorting to poisonous tactics no matter how much they want to win? I ask this after having spent a good portion of the last eight years asking, "What's wrong with these Republican voters? Why do they feed that garbage?"

Politicians are us...we are them, our forefathers set it up that way...

I sold my soul for rock 'n roll.

Given the horrific shape this country's going to be in for the next 4-8 years, and given that neither Clinton nor Obama seems sufficiently willing to go on the offensive against the utter failure, in every respect, of the Cheney/Bush cabal's tenure, I'm not convinced that a McCain win would necessarily be any more catastrophic, long-term, than a Dem win with either Cinton or Obama in charge. The majority of the Dem "leaders" have either sold us out repeatedly, or worse, out-and-out supported the abysmal f@¢&-ups of the Bushists. What makes anyone think that they'll be any better with a corporatist Dem President, and with the media unanimously attacking and undercutting even the slightest moves to the center, let alone the left?
One would have thought that, after 7-plus years of miserable failure, every single tenet of the reichwing program would now be discredited. Maybe the American people need a few more years to really get it. And maybe the Republican-lite Dems need to be all swept out of office so that some real Democrats can take over.
One thing is clear, though. A major impediment to any real change for the better is the corporate-owned mass-media. Until we take back, or create our own, mass media (and no, the internet is nowhere near ready to supplant TeeVee news, both broadcast-network and cable, "news"- and talk-radio, the "news" magazines, and major-market newspapers), our polity will not be ours; it will remain theirs.

Harry said -

"Robert Earle-Wallace was a Democrat. He took more votes from Humphrey than Nixon, according to any analysis I have seen. Are you from the US, because that is fairly basic?"

I grew up in Wisconsin, and was 11 years old in 1968.

Wallace carried Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana. Given that 1968 was the birth of the Republican 'southern strategy' coupled with the fact that the only southern state Humphrey carried was (Johnson's home state of) Texas, it stands to reason (at least, it does to me) that had Wallace not carried those five southern states, Nixon would have.

(You can see the red-blue map here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1968

So if you could point me to some of that 'fairly basic' analysis...

Great, so for this analogy to be valid all we need is for the main challenger to the presumptive Democratic nominee to be assassinated, a racist third party candidate to carry a handful of deep south states, and the Republican opponent to be a charismatically-challenged, paranoid psychopath who smells of brimstone and the Democrats will only lose by a trivial 37 state margin (32 to Nixon, 5 to Wallace - states that would never have gone to Humphrey anyway). Hurray!

Or... we could simply look at the present set of facts and try to deduce logical conclusions from them. If the Democratic race continues to be contested through to the late August convention, that's nearly another six months of Obama and Hillary expending hundreds of millions of dollars beating up on one another that should better be used against McCain. That's very, very, very bad, regardless of whatever political analogies anyone makes.

And for what? The only way Hillary can win is by breaking the rules and seating Florida and Michigan or by somehow getting enough superdelegates to subvert Obama's lead in delegates and the popular votes (yes, even if you count Florida). Either of these actions would rip the party in two. And in any event, whoever emerged would be horribly beaten up while McCain would be free to raise cash, campaign, and define himself with little or no real opposition.

Politicians are us...we are them, our forefathers set it up that way...I sold my soul for rock 'n roll. -elmo

You know what elmo, you are right. Who am I to disrupt the reality base?

Im just a poor bloke who has no wish to be wealthy, or even rule the world, cause I know that global hegemony is to return to the tower of babel. Your right, lets just keep repeating the matrix our intelligence, however lacking, forces us into. Our childrens childrens childrens childrens will love matrix part 100.

smartalek: Thanks so much for digging up that pro-Nader speech from 2000. And as we all know, there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the way Bush governed and the way Gore would have governed.

Perhaps I have missed this... but since the economy is a big issue and the war, last I heard, was costing $3 billion/week... that is our biggest problem.

Obama needs to say that this foreign policy debacle is making the dollar crash, oil prices rise, and that he was against the war. He has to make that case.

Hillary was a jerk to vote for the war. From my reading, adn NOT being in Congress, I knew it was about oil and ego from the get go.

She is arrogant and I know a tremendous number of dems, and some repubs, who will vote for Obama and not her.

I hope Obama is seasoned enough to make these points.

Our childrens childrens childrens childrens will love matrix part 100.

Ok, you lost me there. Good work.

Ok, you lost me there. Good work.
Posted by: elmo

Repeating your past elmo.

Repeating your past elmo

Maybe...

Kevin: "In other words, this was the mother of all ugly, party-destroying campaigns. No other primary campaign in recent memory from either party has come within a million light years of being as fratricidal and ruinous."

Actually, I'd ask that you consider the ugly fight over the 1976 GOP nomination between President Gerald Ford and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, a series of increasingly bitter primary battles that went all the way to the national convention.

Although Ford eventually prevailed at the convention, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller (a moderate Republican) was forced off the ticket in favor of an up-and-coming conservative firebrand, Kansas Sen. Bob Dole. Further, Reagan subsequently decided to bide his time and sat out the '76 general election race, which Ford eventually lost to former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter.

While the Ford-Reagan battles weren't "ruinous" to the GOP in a general sense, the fallout from that conflict influences the general direction of the Republican Party to this day. Following Ford's defeat, GOP moderates were soon easily marginalized by the ultra-conservative acolytes of the so-called "Reagan Revolution," and that party soon made a hard right turn, from which it has yet to pull out.

And as we can see in Gerald Ford's posthumous valedictory, Write It When I'm Gone, he never reconciled with Ronald Reagan, and blamed him for his loss in the '76 general election.

Ironically, Ford and his '76 Democratic opponent, Jimmy Carter, would eventually strike up a deep and enduring friendship, which began when each man discovered that they shared something in common: a mutual disdain and loathing of Reagan and the far-right, neo-conservative movement he ushered into power in Washington.

I was for Dodd. When he withdrew, I figured I would be equally contented if either Clinton or Obama were the nominee. But now if Clinton is the nominee, I really am going to have to hold my nose to vote for her - and that's entirely HER doing and the doing of her campaign. Not what anyone said or reported about her, but what I've SEEN her and her campaign pulling over the past several months.

I wish I knew what she thought she was doing. This is a change election and it's been a change election for over a year. So long as it stays a change election, we WIN. But Hillary has been trying to alter what the entire election is about. Experience? Fear? If the election is about experience, if the election is about fear, MCCAIN wins!

Perhaps she thinks she can beat Obama with the fear card and then pivot in the fall and be the candidate of change and hope and empowerment? The very concepts she's been MOCKING for weeks now? That's going to work?

I've always liked Hillary Clinton. But I hate hate HATE the way she's been campaigning. I'd been thinking for a long time that there was no way the Republicans could win this year. But if the Clinton campaign continues down the road they're on, I just don't know. Because if the election is going to turn on Fear, the Republicans do Fear better - they've had plenty of practice.

And geeeeez, I am SO tired of our elections always being about Fear.

Victoria: "The worst thing Hillary threw was not the 3 AM ad - though I hate fear-mongering crap because it does land deep in people's psyches - but her two creepy qualifiers on the 60 Minutes question about Obama = Muslim. She knew exactly what she was doing."

Oh, puh-LEESE. Are you daft?

I suppose you also take Matt Drudge at his word, and hold Sen. Clinton's campaign responsible for that photo of Sen. Obama in traditional Somali garb, as though he bore no responsibility for allowing his picture to be taken while looking like that in the first place.

If you go back and watch that portion of the 60 Minutes interview in its entirety, it's plainly evident that CBS correspondent Steve Kroft wouldn't take "no" from Hillary as an answer, and he obviously badgered her into making an exasperated follow-up denial. In her final statement to Kroft on the subject, she summarily dismissed those rumors as a "smear".

I'd daresay that most intelligent people accepted her denials about the aforementioned photo and rumors with the good spirit in which they were offered. She certainly can't be held responsible for people being deliberately ignorant or stupid, or for those of you who see and hear only what you want to see and hear.

Barack Obama lost in Texas and Ohio because his campaign was thrown off-message the last few days, in large part because of the controversy over his NAFTA remarks and his erroneous denial of a campaign advisor's meeting with the Canadian counsel general in Chicago -- and I'll take him at his word that he didn't know about the meeting (with the obvious implication that he's been heretofore unconcerned with what senior campaign aides are doing in his name).

Further, Obama once again offered a series of prevarications concerning his relationship with former political patron, Tony Rezko, which I've warned people here ad nauseum for well over four months now. Like the previous one about NAFTA, this problem was also entirely self-inflicted.

Politics can be hardball, and you best anticipate from now on that you'll get a very sharp pushback whenever you and your friends freely traffic in smears of Sen. Clinton, like the one I cited above.

So, stop your sniveling and pull yourself together, because your whining and petulance is really of no use to your candidate. And if you think this last week was tough, just wait'll you see what the Republicans have in store for our party's nominee.

Aloha.

But I hate hate HATE the way she's been campaigning. I'd been thinking for a long time that there was no way the Republicans could win this year. But if the Clinton campaign continues down the road they're on, I just don't know. Because if the election is going to turn on Fear, the Republicans do Fear better - they've had plenty of practice.

Great post, JoyceH. This is very succinct and avoids needless provocation (two things I could be better about myself). Thank you!

I do not think so. I think Hillary proves that she is intelligent. I was a little worried just now. Fortunately she won. Some medias say that only her husband could persuade her to withdraw. But this time Hillary proves herself. I think Hillary's campaign is just like a book's discription -- "An American Journey": http://dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=84962&ru=279 , it sounds fantastic! And I do want to see a woman as president in my lifetime!

It seems that the supporters of Hillary Clinton's campaign believe that they are doing Barack Obama's supporters a favor by "defining" Obama as an empty suit, Chicago-style politician, whose only experience is one speech plus a lot of work for a corrupt slumlord.

The problem is that, while the Republicans will try this in the fall for sure, upsetting long-time Democrats such as myself doesn't matter to Republicans because I never will support a Republican anyway. So, if the charges are misleading and unfair, it is different experience those charges coming from Democrats rather than Republicans.

I know that the Clinton supporters will point out what's been coming from the Obama supporters. All I know is that the longer it goes on, the worse it will be. Yes, whomever wins will eventually rally the base, but, when fights go all the way to the convention, historically the nominees who emerge fall short of winning.

I don't have a solution as I am not suggesting anybody drop out. The Clinton supporters that I know are quite impassioned. They like to point out how they don't hate me, just the candidate that I personally prefer.

She should absolutely stay in the race. To bow out would disenfranchise the citizens who have not yet had their primaries. No matter what those of you (who have already voted) think, people don't want voters of other states to decide the outcome of this race.

The longer this continues, the more the Democrats will be hogging the media attention, the more people will perceive them to be the Party of excitement and change. The small donors who are now sustaining both campaigns have more to give, so using up resources is not an issue.

I hate what this says: go negative and win.

She just won't ever let go. Ever. Nothing positive will come of all of this. The media gave her a nice wet kiss the last two weeks to keep this thing going.

I disagree completely...

POINT 1
A couple weeks ago polls were showing that a large majority of Democrats (I believe it was 73%) would be enthusiast about either BO of HRC if they were the eventual nominee. That is beginning to change. Exit polls from last night showed 50 something percent of voters would be "dissatisfied" if their candidate didn't win the nomination.

POINT 2
Right now all the talking heads seem to agree that the only way Hillary can actually pull this thing
off is if she both "runs the table" from here on out AND DAMAGES OBAMA'S REPUTATION to point where all super dels have no choice but to migrate to her camp.
If she falls short we have a damaged nominee, if she succeeds using Karl Roveian tactics many Obama supporters like myself will find it even harder to vote for her, let alone be enthusiastic about her candidacy or volunteer for her campaign. We want to beat the moral-compass-less, Karl-Rove-win-at-all-cost Republicans - NOT BECOME THEM.

Really Great interesting Story! http://www.spymac.com/details/?2349694

Hillary won last night. She won big in Ohio. She must be commended.

Unfortunately for her, she didn't put a dent in Obama. In a week Hillary's wins will have receded in our memories. All that will remain is that Obama emerged with the same or slightly more pledged delegates.

Obama will have learned a valuable lesson about campaigning.

As to the press, this last week they actively helped Hillary damage Obama, but not enough that he can't come back. I heard the MSNBC crew crowing about their ratings through all of this. The press is loving this campaign. I think they are going to do everything they can to keep it going. It is the best reality show on television.

Well, I certainly feel better after reading your analysis Kevin. Thanks for sharing.

One final thing. Winning this long struggle fair and square will do more to define Obama as the candidate than anything I can think of. He will be able to argue that nothing has been handed to him. That will take power right out of the empty suit argument.

Alright, let's go negative...

WHY WON'T THE CLINTON'S RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNS?...

http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

.

"tin solders and Nixon coming, we're finally on our own..."

"So your brother's bound and gagged and they tied him to a chair, won't you please come to Chicago just to see"

"1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for? I don't know I don't give a damn, were all going to Vietnam..."

Thanks for the memories of the great music written during that time Kevin. Sorry, but that's the only comfort I take from your post. Guess there will be a few great songs written now too

...too bad corporate radio won't play them

robert earle,

in 1968, wallace voters were southern democrats moving away from the democratic party and toward the republicans. nixon's southern strategy did not fully flower until 1972, when he captured their votes and effectively turned the south into a core republican territory.

the states wallace won by all rights should have gone to humphrey. that humphrey couldn't hold them showed that LBJ was right when he told an aide that civil rights/voting right legislation would cost the democrats the south for a generation.

Seems to me we're registering more democrats than ever before in red states, blue states, and battleground states. We're also winning random stuff down the ballot. It wouldn't surprise me if we have a bunch of state legislatures flip this year and force a few of the more loony conservatives to look for new work.

The most negative thing I saw out of the Hillary camp was the reference to the kitchen sink. The 3AM ad was just a less abstract way of emphasizing experience (Obama wasn't mentioned); I don't think she can get credit for leaks from conservatives in the Canadian government, Matt Drudge's crap, or Fitzgerald's case against Rezko; and interpretations of hesitations in speech, subliminal allusions to the N-word, or the color hues in campaign commercials are out there in tinfoil hat land. As far as a wet kiss from the media goes all I learned last night from MSNBC coverage was that she's Machiavellian and she's hurting America.

I don't find the 3am phone call that Hillary Clinton would get very concerning but rather the phone calls from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the afternoon that she gets.

Get the Hunchback of John McCain T shirt at http://hunchback.democratz.org

Here's the GOP plan. Attack Obama a weak commander in chief. Hillary will do the same. If he gets the nomination the MSM continues the now established meme. If Hillary defeats him in the convention by whatever means she's blamed for stealing his nomination and the party is deserted by blacks and the new young voters. The November election does not see a huge turnout of new voters and McCain is elected.

Oh my Gawd!!

This primary campaign has turned into the Ballroom Blitz!

Why is everyone fighting ???

Hillary should just run an anti-Hillary ad like Obama does!

That will show she has judgment and poise and understands the need to quit tearing our party apart!!!

And why shouldn't Obama drop out?

He's can't win a debate on foreign policy. Nobody wants a philosopher king in a time of war.

Following your 1968 timeline, can we expect McCain to announce his secret plan to end the war in October?

Matt nailed it near the beginning of this thread, so I'll quote him:

agree, Kevin. One thing is for sure: this last week was Obama's toughest challenge as a candidate yet and he stumbled. He needs to engage Hillary in the fight and get off of the defensive without tarnishing his positive image. Otherwise, Hillary will use tonight to build real momentum.

And I do want to see a woman as president in my lifetime!

Posted by: Grace on March 5, 2008 at 5:43 AM

I do, too. Just not this one.

auto--
No. Republicans won the deep south in 1964. It was the only area of the country Goldwater carried. Once the Democrats got on the civil rights bus (i.e. 1964), they would never win it again. So, obviously, Wallace helped Humphrey.

Clinton apologist

I didn't say the press want her to win, I said they want the race to continue. I heard some of the same crap from MSNBC myself.

This race is still Obama's to win. If he fights back effectively he will emerge stronger than if she throws in the towel.

The burden is on her to start knocking him off by big margins. There just don't seem to be enough states left for her to win 53-47. She simply has to put him down for the count. If she doesn't he wins on points.

Unless she does something between now and Pennsylvania he is going to roar right back. That will further reduce the number of contests remaining.

This is the most interesting contest I have ever watched. It is far more interesting than 1968. That was a blood bath.

The big state strategy is Rovian math. It just doesn't ad up.

Well, the good news is that the Pennsylvania primary is six weeks after the last primary and one week after the IRS filing date.

Plenty of time for all the candidates to finish and release their taxes.

Obama needs to start hitting that hard, and goading the press every day about examining where the Clintons' money is coming from. That's one of the best ways he can go on the attack while actually reinforcing his theme that he represents a change from politics as usual.

The issue for me is that for HRC to win she will have to make the case that a large percent of already cast democratic votes do not actally matter as much as a MI/FL redo, and then she somehow expects to gain the same voters back to fight McCain.

She allowed her campaign to take the low road because her opponent is percieved to be BETTER than her, by HRC/her staff itself! She decided she could no longer compete on the merits. HRC fans need to really keep that in mind.

She is not going to be able to innuendo/race/fear card her way past McCain in the general. John McCain is NOT going to need to take the low road, he has the "America rulez because we cant say we were wrong" vote wrapped up, and you cannot underestimate the need for Americans in general to be told they are right and always have been.
IMHO all McCain has to do is point out how nasty she has been in this race to her potential base and it reconfirms the opinions of some and the suspicions of many more.

I agree. If the narrative is that Obama is "too fragile" to withstand a primary fight with the Clintons then he is toast in November. The "Weak on defense" meme is applied to Dems that can't fight a decent campaign and stand up for their beliefs and fight back against smears. If Obama cannot fight back, he should not be the nominee.

I voted for Obama in the primary in our state but I don't blame Clinton staying in the race and doing what she has so far to win the race. It's a shame that the party has two really good candidates that have come along at the same time. I wish I could be as sanguine as Kevin about the prospects of how this will turn out. I think it is looking like it will become a real mess and I can't help but think that could very easily tip the scales just enough for McCain to win. I expected a win by either Obama or Clinton by just a percent or two (assuming there isn't some other major event that changes the dynamics) over McCain before this situation arose, but now I'm beginning to doubt that will happen.

So dead on that it bears repeating:

I wish I knew what she thought she was doing. This is a change election and it's been a change election for over a year. So long as it stays a change election, we WIN. But Hillary has been trying to alter what the entire election is about. Experience? Fear? If the election is about experience, if the election is about fear, MCCAIN wins!

Perhaps she thinks she can beat Obama with the fear card and then pivot in the fall and be the candidate of change and hope and empowerment? The very concepts she's been MOCKING for weeks now? That's going to work?

I've always liked Hillary Clinton. But I hate hate HATE the way she's been campaigning. I'd been thinking for a long time that there was no way the Republicans could win this year. But if the Clinton campaign continues down the road they're on, I just don't know. Because if the election is going to turn on Fear, the Republicans do Fear better - they've had plenty of practice.

And geeeeez, I am SO tired of our elections always being about Fear.

mr. shortstop this morning: "Well, if she pulls it out, the general will come down to Fear and Fear Lite. Again."

A couple weeks ago polls were showing that a large majority of Democrats (I believe it was 73%) would be enthusiast about either BO of HRC if they were the eventual nominee. That is beginning to change. Exit polls from last night showed 50 something percent of voters would be "dissatisfied" if their candidate didn't win the nomination.

I haven't had time to look it up yet, but Paul Begala (yes, I know) last night commented that 25 percent--25 percent!--of Clinton voters and 10 percent of Obama voters say they'll vote for McCain if their fave doesn't get the Democratic nomination. Unfuckingbelievable.

Donald from Hawaii said Barack Obama lost in Texas and Ohio because his campaign was thrown off-message the last few days, in large part because of the controversy over his NAFTA remarks and his erroneous denial of a campaign advisor's meeting with the Canadian counsel general in Chicago --

Donald is right, but there seems to be more to this, sundry factors that I can't quite nail. As an Obama supporter, I'm pretty devastated about last night's results. Even if Obama had squeaked through in Texas, and even though Hillary's margin of victory in Ohio shrunk to 10%, Obama still got trounced in a key battlefield state where he had plenty of time, money, and organization. The only difference between Hillary and Obama on bread and butter issues like NAFTA and health care are mandates, and it's hard to believe mandates accounted for this romp.

Obama's lead in delegates won't resonate from now on, and things are much tougher for him ahead. The superdelegates will be on hold. He has to do very well in Pennsylvania, a state that isn't particularly fertile ground for him. The DNC must redo Michigan and Florida, and Florida will be a challenge (not least because of the Manchurian candidate smear campaign that's been circulating in the Jewish community for months).

I do not want Obama to go negative. Compared to Hillary's embarrassing comportment these past few weeks, Obama has been a gentlemen. He should concentrate on avoiding dumb missteps like the Goolsbee affair and start freshening his rhetoric. Hillary's campaign has been effective at creating the perception that Obama's an empty suit, and Obama needs to concentrate on changing that perception.

I sent money (that I could ill afford) to Obama again this morning, but as soon as he starts whining, dissimulating, and writing McCain's ads like Hillary, the sooner I will divert my contributions to the overdue healthcare bills stacked on my desk.

Though an Obama supporter from the start, I've been an apologist for the Clintons for years and felt pretty neutral toward Hillary when the primary season began. Since then I've developed a profound distaste for her. The difference between Hillary and Obama last night could not have been more stark: Hillary's speech was all about her; Obama's speech was about a vision for the country. I've never voted for a Republican for in my life, and I'm not about to start now, but it won't matter anyway. If Hillary is the nom, John McCain will be president.

Kevin wrote: "... the proposition that a long, drawn-out Democratic primary runs the risk of destroying the party and putting John McCain in the White House ... I'd like to offer a historical counterexample: 1968 ... Humphrey lost the popular vote to Nixon by less than 1% ... If long, bitter, primary campaigns really destroy parties, then Humphrey should have lost the 1968 election by about 50 points."

The point is, WHO CARES if McCain wins by one percent or by a landslide? Do you think that Nixon and the Republicans were shedding tears in 1968 that they didn't win by a bigger margin?

For that matter, as we well know from the 2000 and 2004 elections, McCain doesn't need to win at all -- he just needs to get close enough for the Republicans to steal the election. Which McCain and the Republican Party will trumpet as an overwhelming "mandate" for endless war abroad, and endless corporate dictatorship at home.

Devoted Democratic partisans may worry about the long-term effects of this primary campaign on the Party. I am not worried about that.

I am worried about the prospect of John McCain -- who is a corrupt, lying thief, a ruthless corporate imperialist, a totalitarian thug, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the most extreme, neo-fascist wing of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc., just like Cheney and Bush -- becoming the next president.

Both Obama and Clinton (and their supporters) are busily doing the work of the Republican Party and the corporate-owned mass media for them, by waging campaigns of character assassination against each other.

And at this point I think it is increasingly likely that McCain will steal another close election and be installed as president in January 2009.

bakho

I absolutely agree. Obama has to fight back. How is the interesting question.

I think he is going to starting now. I just don't know which path he will take.

If he doesn't she will start pounding him.

Animist you just outlined how Obama can fight back.

The tainted Clinton money is the perfect attack mode because it resonates right in tune with his change theme. Where's that tax return?

If I don't start seeing this within the next few days I'm going to be extremely hacked off at the Obama campaign. If they think they can just go on as before, it means they've been infected with the same kind of smugness that nearly killed the Clinton campaign.

At this point, I think the damage to both candidates has already been done, and will inevitably result in a Democratic loss in November. Talk to both Clinton AND Obama supporters, and a growing number not only back their particular candidate but are increasingly hostile towards the opponent. Clinton has successfully cast Obama as inexperienced and deceptive in the minds of many of her backers, and I doubt that they're going to suddenly turn around after the convention and be able to support him. Many will probably just sit home in November. Likewise, Obama and his coalition of liberals and independents view Clinton as being no different than John McCain. If Clinton wins the nomination, many of the Obama backers will have no reason to vote in November.

I'm afraid that it's a no-win situation. Congrats to John McCain, who won his party's nomination and the Presidency all in the same night.

THE MYTH OF REPUBLIKLAN PARTY CREDIBILITY ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY EXPLODED WITH THE PASSENGERS ON THE PLANE THAT HIT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON SEPT 11, 2001. FURTHERMORE THE REPUBLIKLAN PARTY APPEARS THE ONLY PARTY THAT HAS ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED THEIR WEAKNESS ON ATIONAL DEFENSE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. OH AND WE DID HAVE ATTACKS ON OUR COUNTRY SINCE SEPT 11, 2001. THE RIGHT WING ANTHRAX KILLER KILLED PEOPLE AND SENT ANTHRAX TO 2 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS.

Get the Hunchabck of John McCain T shirt at http://hunchback.democratz.org

I'm a registered Green Party voter in Maryland, and have been looking forward to casting my vote in November for the Green Party's presidential nominee (unless it is Ralph Nader, which at this point seems unlikely since he has announced he is not seeking the Green Party's nomination this year).

Maryland goes Democratic in presidential elections by a large margin, so I have the "luxury" of being able to vote Green without worrying about helping to elect a Republican president.

However, at this point I would not be surprised if the race in Maryland is so close that I will need to vote for the Democratic nominee because every vote will be crucial to preventing Maryland from being carried by McCain.

And if that happens, then McCain will be on his way to winning by a landslide nationally, anyway.

Er, make that: I've never voted for a Republican for president in my life.

Ahh. This is what I have missed around here. I used to enjoy the general discontent in these comments, but that has been sorely missing during Obama's "Adoration of the Magus" tour. I can't tell you how disappointing it was when I recently went back in the archives to Nov. of 2004, and found all the comments had been deleted. The comments here after that election never failed to cheer me up, but, lately, things have been a little too chipper around here for my tastes. This is more like it. BTW, my wife and I, and at least 20 other Republicans we know, all voted for Hillary yesterday here in Ohio. That's purely anecdotal, but I would like to think that thousands of other Republicans did the same. Now, back to the whining.

Wow Kevin, what an inspiring story. So I guess we can all look forward to the satisfaction that comes from barely losing.

Yes this primary season has a long way to go to approach the bitterness of '68. And, thankfully, we have a long way to go.

But what your analysis doesn't even consider is that the press today is nothing like the press then. Then they did their job. Now..well you know now. But the fact is that it's the craven press that will make the difference as they have the last two elections. And so we will be left with Proud St. McCain vs. the Horribly Divided Democrats. And we will lose. By 1%. So yes indeed, let's chill out. Nothing to worry about. Defeat is well in hand.

Hey Billy Bob, we look forward to YOUR whining when we kick your ignorant old fart's ass in November, with either of our far more competent candidates. Oh, that's right, you'll be nowhere to be seen.

Senator Obama has not won one large state.

it's fine to attack people in your own party on the national stage on substance, and even expected that the facts and sentiment will be stretched. is another thing to smear someone who is ahead in the nomination fight. it undermines the party and the hopfe for the future everyone in it is fighting for.

i think there is a risk here. to date, the primaries have drawn record crowds, in large part with people new to the political process drawn by enthusiasm for Obama. And he being drawn onto defense about his religion, his basic competence, his ethics, and his truthfulness on NAFTA all undermine the atmosphere that has made the Democratic primaries to date largely appealing. Where we are headed is the same old fratricidal bullshit that makes most Americans frustrated with Democrats and the poltical process. So, this is no 68, no doubt, but Hillary is stinking up the place in order to get ahead. You can do that against a Republican, and vice versa, but to do that to the guy who is more likely to lead the party in the presidential election than she is, earns her great demerit, in my view.

Those were fascinating results last night, and I think they should give a great deal of concern for those who think Obama is the stonger candidate for the fall election. He beats Clinton in caucuses, and he beats her in states Democrats are not going to win come November. I am beginning to think Clinton actually has the better chance against McCain, even though I view her, too, as a nonideal candidate for the Democrats.

All in all, things are looking positive for John McCain. The two Democrats will continue to claw at each other through at least the next month and a half, and likely right through to the convention.

>" primary runs the risk of destroying the party and putting John McCain in the White House. "

Hilary as the dem candidate is the best way to put John McCain in the White House. I would not be shocked if there is a lot of behind the scenes effort by the republicans to that end.

HC vs McCain will be a contest of FEAR versus FEAR... and the republicans have been masters of the FEAR angle since Reagans 'Bear in The Woods' ad campaign.

Hillary isn't going to quit now, nor should she. The math is irrelevant. You don't slip into the nomination on points, IMO. You win states, and the bigger states do count more. Ohio was a huge win because it's a state that needs to swing the Dems way in order to win the GE.

Personally what I see happening is a backroom deal that says the ticket is almost set: We're looking at the presidential and vp nominees. Whether it'll be Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton will depend almost entirely on Pennsylvania. I figure that whoever wins that will get the nomination, as the loser will suspend their campaign at that point.

the argument that these results show that Hillbilly will win in the key states in the general in a way Barrack can't doesn't hold water. Obama is steadily winning more independent and republican defector support than H. Hill's strongest support is core dem. What are they gonna do, vote McCain? No way. Her support is more reliable to go to Obama than the other way, AND Obama draws from crucial votes McCain needs in a way that Hill does not. I think there outcomes show that either Dem is strong in the crucial states this year, just based on turn out, but if you look at who's voting it's clear Obama is stronger than Clinton in the Ohios, Missouris, and Texases. He can bank his support and virtually all of hers, but there are indies and reps that will go to him against McCain that would go to McCain against her. Period.

Barack needs a new opponent. How about somebody named Hillary W. McCain. They are the establishment that brought us to this fearful place. They don't seem to have a clue as to get us out. The fear card plays both ways. Obama needs to offer hope at the end of the tunnel. He is perfectly positioned to run a campaign based on the slogan its time for a change vote against Hillary W. McCain.

Quinn, you are wrong. Obama will win the big blue states easily. If a handful of big blue states counted more than a lot of little red states Al Gore would be wrapping up his second term. We need to pick off some of the purple and red states.

Hillary's old style blue state strategy is a recipe for disaster.

Buford is correct, and there is the rumor that McCain's people are connected to the Canadian PM's people by pollsters, consultants and what not, and that the hit was put out on Obama on NAFTA to stop Obama from putting it away in Ohio and Texas. If that was the plan, they aced it.

Buford talked about a "behind-the-scenes effort" by Republicans to make sure Hillary is the nominee. I have news for you: it's not behind-the-scenes. Rush Limbaugh and others like him are actively encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary. Because they know she's the one they can beat. They might be wrong. But doesn't the fact that everyone from Karl Rove to Rush Limbaugh thinks she's the weak candidate give all you Hillary-don't-Quit types even a moment's pause?

Senator Obama has not won one large state.

I get a little tired of this disingenuous argument and its attempt to pretend that Obama vs. McCain is like Obama vs. Clinton. Do people really believe that Obama would fail to take California and New York? And do they honestly think that either Dem would take Florida or Texas?

The only thing that matters in these instances is head-to-head polls. And those show Obama beating McCain in a number of states and both Clinton and Obama besting McCain in several others. As of last week, IINM, no state polls have shown Clinton beating McCain while Obama loses to him, although a couple have shown Clinton losing to McCain by lesser margins than Obama would.

Now, that may be changing. It's worth keeping an eye on. But this argument from Clinton supporters has been going on for weeks, and it's been specious all that time. We'll see if it remains so after last night.

Ron,

But even if you say that we need pick off purple and red states, Ohio and Texas both fit that bill. If Ohio was just going to fall to whichever Democrat was nominated, we would've had President Gore or President Kerry right now. Texas is a longer shot, but as of right now, Clinton can make the pitch that she can come closer than Obama can.

I think that it still comes down to Pennsylvania. The narrative is that Obama can't win the Democratic strongholds, and that the Democratic Party shouldn't ignore the wishes of its core. I don't personally agree, but that's definitely the narrative going forward, and the math argument just won't have legs, IMO. Penn's a must win for Obama at this point, math or no.

Obama outspent her what 3:1? Obama fans are pissed. This is ridiculous.

"BTW, my wife and I, and at least 20 other Republicans we know, all voted for Hillary yesterday here in Ohio."

I'm sure HRC is counting on more and more support from the "base" of her "surge".

(Surge as defined by me for this post means when you freaking know you cant win but are counting holding your ground as winning/surging despite the massive toll in resources and goodwill to achieve said holding ground).

Her surge seems about as contructive as the one in Iraq. Sure at some point she may have to SAY she cant win, but as long as she is surging she doesnt have to say those words. As long as we dont leave Iraq, we dont have to say we lost!!! Its an American tradition!!!

Is this the biggest surge of Hillary's political career, and if so what does that tell you about how "popular" she is? I dont want a president who will do anything to win something unwinnable/already fubar-ed, do you?

I live in a southern state where everyone around me is a turbo republican who despises Hillary Clinton as someone who is ruthlessly ambitious and would throw her own mother under the bus to get what she wants. I have always defended her, believing she was just the victim of the right wing attack machine's efforts to demonize her, but after watching her attack Obama this past week, a fellow democrat, I am beginning to think my republican friends are right about her and that she is willing now to throw the whole democratic party and the fall election under the bus to get what she wants. It is a very ugly picture. It this goes on, and I'm sure it will, the democrats probably lose in the fall in an election that should have been ours for the taking. Hillary will do to the party just what George Bush did to the country...divide us in two...neither half willing to work with the other. She will lose large chunks of black voters and young voters, as well as independents and Republican leaners. There won't be any party unity. McCain will look like the uniter and Hillary the divider. Even if she wins in the fall by some slim margin, she will have no coattails and will be unable to move an agenda through Congress. There will be NO Republicans moving across the aisle to work with her. I am sick about this. I may end up voting for McCain myself..or just not vote at all. This is so depressing.

Quinn, do you really think Hillary will beat McCain in either Ohio or Texas? The Democratic base is in the bag for either Obama or Clinton. Read shortstops post. She has nailed it as usual.

I still think Obama should start the general today. His opponent should be Hillary W. McCain the establishment that brought us to this fearful place. If you elect Hillary W. McCain you will get more of the same. Turn experience into inaction and Obama romps. His only concern would be peaking too early.

Anyway he should be running against the opponents of change. McCain and Clinton are both perfectly positioned to be labelled defenders of the status quo. Obama needs to retool his message a little bit. He needs to come out hitting the beltway establishment hard. He doesn't need to get into the weeds with Hillary. He needs to tie both McCain and Hillary to the lobbyist establishment and beat Hillary W. McCain into a bloody pulp. America is ready for change. They will vote against anybody you can tie to the establishment.

Perhaps we can have a rerun of the Chicago '68 convention too, when Hillary wins the nomination via superdelegates or other questionable means. We won't be staying in the "free speech zones".

What's the big deal? Hillary stole one of McCain's ads, ran like a Republican, and only improved her standing by a few delegates.

She's still losing. The only way she held on in Texas was because Republicans were voting for her.

Mathematically, the only way she can take the nomination is by relying on the least democratic parts of the process, at which point her support will be limited to the menopause caucus.
.

Every single race from here on out is a must win for hillbilly, and it's not going to happen. PA is a should win for Obama. He really could use a clear win in a state such as PA, but he's got the edge with or without it.

Again, I think Hill's victories are based on tapped out support in purple states, and show her limit. Barrack could take all her votes as well as his, leaving Mac with jack. Hill's not taking all Obama's votes as some of them, like it or not, would fall for Mac's bs "independent" persona and vote for satan over Hill. Sad but true. Hill's victories last night show the limit of her strength. unfortunately, i think it's fair for her to fight on in light of them. but i sure wish she'd stop smearing the guy who is still the front runner as an inexperienced muslim who will give the country over to terrorists and our jobs over to mexico and canada. kinda fires my distaste for her into a simmering loath.

My argument long story short, instead of letting Hillary W. McCain define "experience" as a feature, turn "experience" into a bug.

By the way, the exit poll numbers from last night support me. People think Change is more important than Experience by about 3 to 1.

"Quinn, do you really think Hillary will beat McCain in either Ohio or Texas? The Democratic base is in the bag for either Obama or Clinton. Read shortstops post. She has nailed it as usual."

Texas, probably not. I don't think Obama will win there either.

The question is Ohio. Right now, how can you possibly say that more people will vote for Obama vs. McCain than they will for Hillary? The results last night speak for themselves. That wasn't a small margin in Ohio last night. That was a solid win.

This campaign is turning out voters at record-shattering rates. Both Obama and Hillary regularly get more voters for each of them than for John McCain.

A few of those voters might stay home if their pick loses the nomination, it's true. Maybe some are Republicans trying to tilt the contest in their favor. However, the reason Democrats are holding open primaries is that it's been proven that someone voting in the primary is far more likely to to vote for that party in the general.

So by all means, keep this show going.

McCain in a landslide? No one will vote for Obama? Hillary is the anti-christ? Obama is the anti-christ?

It's all about money.

McCain can't raise it, Hillary spends it foolishly, and Obama is getting more of it than anyone else.

It doesn't matter who gets the Dem nomination--BOTH candidates have been through a bruising fight that has toughened both of them up. McCain has been through a "last man standing" primary where he hasn't really been challenged, unless you count having the media ask you why you're so wonderful and strong is a challenge.

Things couldn't be better than they are right now--an energized, electrified Democratic Party is trying to decide between Excellent and Outstanding and millions of dollars are flooding in to back both of them up. When the cash from small donors dries up, that's when you have to start worrying about who is going to turn out and vote. There is more political skill and talent wrapped up in both Obama and Clinton than Kerry could have ever hoped to have possessed.

What's wrong with casting your vote and waiting? What's wrong with participating in the process and then, ultimately, accepting the outcome? Forget everything else--if you voted or took part in a Caucus, great. If your candidate didn't win, okay fine. If you can't accept the outcome of a Democratic Primary, then maybe the problem is with you and not the process.

The DailyKos is being ripped to shreds right now--people are separating into factions and are flaming the shit out of each other over minor policy differences between two people in the same party who are on the same sheet of music 99% of the time.

I think what it says is, if you're not mature enough to handle what happens when your candidate doesn't win an election, then there's no way you're going to find the process of getting things done acceptable. Hey, maybe democracy isn't your thing.

First of all Quinn, the Ohio Dittoheads will be voting for McCain instead of Hillary. The Ohio democratic base will be voting for either Obama or Clinton.

Pale Rider, great post. You hit it on the head.

The question is Ohio. Right now, how can you possibly say that more people will vote for Obama vs. McCain than they will for Hillary? The results last night speak for themselves. That wasn't a small margin in Ohio last night. That was a solid win.

Yes, she thumped him. But this is what I'm talking about. A Feb. 27 University of Cincinnati poll for Ohio:

Obama 48%, McCain 47%
McCain 51%, Clinton 47%

I want to see a new poll, because I expect these numbers to shift in Clinton's favor after last night.

I have never in my life time known a major democratic candidate to run as harsh a series of attacks against an opponent in their own party as Hillary has. So with all due respect I disagree that the talk about this damaging the party is overblown, this isn't just an extended campaign. This is something new. A contender going for the throat regularly as if this was a general election.

The point not mentioned by Kevin is that the main issue is not merely winning the Presidency but doing so in a way that brings the country together again after decades of bitter partisanship & division. Winning the Presidency does little good if it does not lead to the kind of transformational governance which will motivate the public to climb out of the deep hole of decades living off economic achievements of the 1960s-1980s and of the recent Bush "Empire" which has alienated traditional allies around the world. The divisiveness of the Clinton family is second only to the Bush legacy, so the sooner Hillary leaves the stage, the better.

No Matter how far you can drag Obama down it doesnt get Clinton high enough. Thats the 800 pound gorilla in the room for HRC supporters. How do you make her more appealing? You can't. Tell me how HRC is appealing, or will become appealing to anyone who is not already a supporter of her. Who do you think she is going to convince?

Right now for the HRC camp to feel vidicated somehow about the tactics they are using lately is a HUGE mistake. They are riffing off the rabid BO fans and the media that somehow low-road tactics changed something. They did not. In OH you had a great number of D voters state they voted race, and they voted against BO. This DID NOT happen because of the photo or Rezco. I think the media and the tubes want to see this ever changing D race. It doesnt change that much, and never did leading up to yesterday.

Shortstop -

I've essentially been discounting those kinds of polls mainly because we haven't even reached the GE season yet, and those things change on a dime. Like you said, right now it'll probably show Clinton over Obama and possibly over McCain (or maybe not.)

The question is what does the Democratic Party as a whole need to look at when trying to decide who should be the nominee. I think the primary results count far, far more than a 9 month early poll of possible GE matchups.

Crap, crap, crap. I did my part last night voting for Obama...twice. I am very disappointed this morning for the very reasons outlined by Augustus and others above. This nomination needed to be decided to avoid fracturing the Dem party and focus on beating McCain - instead we continue for 3 more months with the Dem candidates beating each other to death. I'm not optimistic with this scenario.

Politics at the Presidential level is not played by the rules of polite society and it is perfectly acceptable to challenge a candidates ideas and qualifications. Politics is a very tough activity and this campaign is incredibly civilized when compared to 1960, 1968 and 1972. Things in 1976 were no picnic either and things were very rough between Humphrey and Carter.

I say enjoy the battle, be vigorous in supporting your candidate and in the end rally together and vote Democratic because these are two excellent candidates either of whom is better then what the Republicans have to offer.

ckelly, I didn't know you were a Texan, not that I would have ever countenanced messing with you.

Quinn, of course I agree that we're too far out for these GE polls to be very meaningful, but I disagree that we can derive more information re the general from primary results.

Don't forget that in open primaries, and especially when we have a tight race on our side, at least some people voting in the Democratic primary have no intention of voting for either Democrat. Even if everyone voting in Ohio's primary had been a Dem or a Dem-committed independent, that doesn't say enough about how the entire state will behave in the general.

Having said that, I think Ohio is likely to solidify behind Clinton, and what numbers we do get regarding the general will now have her outperforming Obama against McCain.

Isn't much difference among the candidates for coyote-in-chief to replace Bush anyway. See say pwayday.

We can only hope for a decent vice president and a William Henry Harrison type of regime.

I think its interesting to see how the media narrative is beginning to change on Obama. I pointed out in a post awhile back how the press has a crush on Obama now, and that when the love affair is over they will turn on him ruthlessly and mercilessly. That is starting to happen. And to be honest, I think he is in for a rude awakening.

He has had a blessed political career, with not much opposition. I think he is going to learn just how brutal being on the wrong side of the media can be.

Watching CNN last night you could already see the meme being formed, when the commentators were talking about how Obama has a "glass jaw", and cant seem to close the deal.

Like Dark Helmet said in Spaceballs "There are two sides to every schwartz, the upside and the downside." Obama has been riding the upside, but now the media is starting to question its adoration. Here comes the downside.

Once that happens, its over for Obama.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

1968 was not a narrow tactical defeat. It was a watershed election and the beginning of 40 years of conservative dominance. Until this primary fight erupted, only now were Democrats beginning to recover from the disasters of 1968.

Further, you're not considering the power of memes, cable television, and new media. Attacks in the primaries aren't quickly forgotten, as they might have been 40 years ago; they're easily recycled. Talking heads have much more power than they do then, and it's much harder to disrupt established narratives.

All of this points to a brokered convention for Democrats, a lackluster grassroots campaign, and a narrow McCain victory.

Wow, cold comfort there Kevin. Very cold.

Look people quit with so much focus on the Pres. race. Without picking up more seats in the Senate we are toast, period. If you think Hillary has any coattails in that regard, think again. She will bring out the GOP in droves and we're dead in the water again, even if she could win the GE (which I seriously doubt).

"I think what it says is, if you're not mature enough to handle what happens when your candidate doesn't win an election, then there's no way you're going to find the process of getting things done acceptable. Hey, maybe democracy isn't your thing."

Y'know there are ALOT of Americans who have learned it DID freaking matter who won in 2000 and 2004. This country went into the shitter IMHO and I would have recommended open anarchy over letting GWB into the whitehouse if I could have known all that was to come. But I had the same attitude as you do now back then.

Hey maybe the difference between having a FUNCTIONING democracy and whatever the hell we have now is not that big of a deal to you. It is/was to me. "Democracy" is not the thing of many Iraqis, but not without good reason....

I have never in my life time known a major democratic candidate to run as harsh a series of attacks against an opponent in their own party as Hillary has. So with all due respect I disagree that the talk about this damaging the party is overblown, this isn't just an extended campaign. This is something new. A contender going for the throat regularly as if this was a general election.

Oh, please. You must be three and a half years old. Biden was knocked out of the 1988 primary when a Dukakis aide put out the plagiarism thing. Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown nearly came to blows in 1992. Ted Kennedy went after Jimmy Carter in 1980 and tried to get Carter's delegates to switch their preference. Go back and read some of the speeches John Kennedy gave in 1960 about his rivals for the nomination.

And I guarantee you--nothing that has gone on between Obama and Clinton will ever rival the viciousness of Lyndon Johnson vs Robert Kennedy.

Kevin, I think people are overlooking the racial aspect of this which will be crucial. I don't think it will be possible for Hillary to win a majority of pledged delegates, those chosen in the state contests. If the superdelegates decide to put her over, it will be an enormous thumb in the eye of the African-American electorate. Can the Democratic party dare to do that? The party's majority, where it has one, depends on a high African-American turnout.

Sorry to point to the race issue, but it's right there in front of everybody. Many African-Americans think, quite properly, that the Democrats haven't done anything for them in return for their loyalty. If the Democrats spurn the African-American candidate with the most pledged delegates, and a bunch of old white guys pick Hillary, you'll hear the word "plantation" coming up more and more in the African-American community.

"Things couldn't be better than they are right now--an energized, electrified Democratic Party is trying to decide between Excellent and Outstanding and millions of dollars are flooding in to back both of them up. When the cash from small donors dries up, that's when you have to start worrying about who is going to turn out and vote. There is more political skill and talent wrapped up in both Obama and Clinton than Kerry could have ever hoped to have possessed." - Pale Rider

"I say enjoy the battle, be vigorous in supporting your candidate and in the end rally together and vote Democratic because these are two excellent candidates either of whom is better then what the Republicans have to offer." - Bob O'Reilly

I disagree that we are faced with equally excellent choices and we should be happy.

I and a lot of others are having a very difficult time swallowing the idea of voting for Hillary Clinton, just as I'm sure some are not looking forward to potentially voting for Barack Obama. And while I will fall in line when it comes to the Dems, there are many who won't and will switch to McCain easily. My personal view is that more will likely switch to McCain if Hillary is the nominee than if it's Obama.

Y'know there are ALOT of Americans who have learned it DID freaking matter who won in 2000 and 2004. This country went into the shitter IMHO and I would have recommended open anarchy over letting GWB into the whitehouse if I could have known all that was to come. But I had the same attitude as you do now back then.

Which attitude do you think I have? I'm talking about the Democratic primary, not the general election. You accept the results of the election. The fact that the Supreme Court decided the election in 2000 means that people had to swallow a bitter pill and accept the results. The fact that no one challenged what went on in Ohio meant that people had to swallow a bitter pill and move on. That's what we have to do in this country if we end up with McCain in the fall--we will have to swallow a bitter pill and accept the results. If you seriously think millions are just going to swell into a militia and start an armed insurrection just because what you wanted didn't happen, you're out of your mind. You're taking this way too far. As bad as Bush has been, if you accept the premise that I don't have to accept the results of the election, then we're in for a ride to a place no one has seen before.

You know what anarchy gets you? Dogs eating corpses in the road and people out of their minds with fear. If THAT'S what you prefer, be my guest. You and your dumb little buddies can start whatever you want to start. See where it gets you.

Hey maybe the difference between having a FUNCTIONING democracy and whatever the hell we have now is not that big of a deal to you. It is/was to me. "Democracy" is not the thing of many Iraqis, but not without good reason....

No, it is a big deal. That's why people need to vote and participate in the process. And a large part of that is, you have to accept the results. If you're not mature enough to handle the fact that the final tally of the votes might put you on the losing team, well...

...maybe Democracy just isn't your thing.

My personal view is that more will likely switch to McCain if Hillary is the nominee than if it's Obama.

Renegade Obama supporters are probably more likely to go third party--or, if they're first-time voters, just stay home.

I found the Pew poll Begala was referring to last night (mentioned in my 9:10 a.m. post), and no one will be surprised that Begala misquoted it. What it did say is that up to 20 percent of white Democrats would vote for McCain if Obama's the nominee, but 10 percent of white Democrats would vote for McCain if Clinton's the nominee. And every one of them can kiss my ass.*

*not an actual report finding

Chill? Recall 1968? Fine. I can do that. It's snowing outside and I have to listen to a stentorian, pink-faced Terry McAuliffe act all triumphant while MSNBC refs Mika and Joe embarrass themselves with morning-after adulation. That Chicago reporter is opining that desperation and expedience combined, in the Clinton campaign, to produce these ugly victories.

Obama connects with voters when he tells them what they know is true. He might want to find a way to remind us that Hillary is the say-anything and do-anything candidate with only a veneer of experience by association. Negative campaigns work. Debate performances are important. Obama must land more punches and call her on her "poor me" (the whining) replies and mau-mauing her opponents with broad-brush charges of misogyny and sexism.

He might want to chip away at the Uber Good Mom of the "It's 3 AM" ad. Attack that benign persona, and its suggestion of experience, until you provoke the Alpha Mom, the Scolding Mom, the Bitter Mom, Humorless Mom, the Say-Anything, Do-Anything Mom--the Hillary, in short who has been on display throughout the campaign but was kept under wraps in Ohio and Texas.

I haven't had time to look it up yet, but Paul Begala (yes, I know) last night commented that 25 percent--25 percent!--of Clinton voters and 10 percent of Obama voters say they'll vote for McCain if their fave doesn't get the Democratic nomination. Unfuckingbelievable.

Not unbelievable at all. That's emotion talking, not rationality. Both camps are passionate about their candidate right now and are in a "never say die" mode. Someone has to lose, and it will hurt the egos of the supporters more than the candidates themselves.

The real question for dems is will there be enough time for those emotional wounds to heal so that the dems can take advantage of what should be a favorable climate for their ascension in November.

Kevin says "don't panic," but given the emotional temperature on display right now, I'm inclined to at least be a bit worried.

I also think that a increased level of attack mode between Obama and Clinton will do damage to both brands before November.

Finally, there will be no "white knight" at the convention. If it goes that far, the best the dems can hope for is a straightforward process to get to the "winner," with a rousing endorsement of that winner by the loser. As I wrote that last sentence, I realized how ridiculous it sounds.

Don't panic?

OK, the house is not on fire, but what are all those little bugs crawling around the frame and where did that sawdust come from?

Quinn on March 5, 2008 at 9:54 AM:

If Ohio was just going to fall to whichever Democrat was nominated, we would've had President Gore or President Kerry right now.

That's an invalid comparison for a lot of reasons, Quinn. You should know that.

This race isn't over...Obama could stumble - or gets tripped - but considering that Obama overcame a twenty-point polling deficit to Clinton in less than a month in Ohio, basically tied with Clinton in Texas, and currently holds the delegate lead, it's really hard to make a case that the Clinton candidacy is becoming stronger, or that she'll pull more support in traditionally red states than Obama, or start talking about how she would accept him as a vice president. I never liked it when the media called her the

However, Clinton should continue as long as it makes sense for her to do so...I would like her a whole lot better, however, if she saved her negative campaign tactics for McCain. I realize that 'politics ain't beanbag', and Obama needs to be able to withstand and respond to shots like the ones Clinton is giving him, but you don't go all smeary and dishonest on someone who represents a sizable portion of your constituency.

Same goes for Obama as well. We are supposed to be the adults, the responsible and responsive ones; we must act in that manner.

Maybe so, and even though I like the continued discussion, Democrats, and I believe America, can't afford another Republican in our White House. I would like the remaining candidates to specify what McCain's platform means to our future, how their plans differ, and why that's what we need. Ad hominem attacks against their fellow party member does very little to advance the ultimate goal of a Democratic president, something I desperately hope to see.
Some very lasting effects of Bush: Roberts, Alito.

Preview is my friend. I forget that sometimes.

(finishing an incomplete sentence from the prior post)

I never liked it when the media called her [Clinton] the 'inevitable' candidate, similar to how Obama was presented recently, when the media began asking Clinton whether or not she should be running. Funny how both pronouncements have proven wrong.

On the one hand, Obama needs to show he can survive the kitchen sink tactics. On the other hand, the longer and uglier this gets, the more it helps McCain. McCain will remain "above the fray" and come out smelling like a rose. If he throws a few populist phrases into his rhetoric, he'll carry the day in November.

Obama started last night using the right words. Every time he mentions "Sen. Clinton" he should mention "Sen. McCain." Tie them together in the same sentence 100 percent of the time.

I won't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Period.

I don't give a damn what happens. I am SICK and TIRED of holding my nose and voting for the least repulsive candidate.

If she is the nominee, I will stay home and eat popcorn.

It's not like it makes any fucking difference who is elected or appointed by Diebold, as the case may be, since the policies that drive this country are NOT determined, decided or even crafted by the people who are "elected".

Every bit of legislation that has been enacted in the last 8 years was drawn up by the DOD, or some corporation who bought and paid for their representative, senator and President.

The American people have been disenfranchised and soon will wake up to find themselves homeless in the country created by their forefathers.

Color me disgusted and not gonna play anymore.

Vermont and Rhode Island basically cancel each other out. Hillary picked up between 12-16 delegates in Ohio, and Obama is likely to come away with a handful more delegates in Texas. So, at the end of the night, Hillary made up a total of around a dozen or so delegates...

It's over. Clinton can't catch Obama, period. That fact alone should tell her she should bow out....but she won't. And this is somehow a good thing?

Color me disgusted and not gonna play anymore.

Okay, poor baby.

But you do realize that you don't get to bitch about the results, don't you? If you don't vote, you don't get to bitch when things go south. Or north. Or off the beaten path. Or into the shitter. Or off the rails.

Sit on your hands and cry because you didn't get your way. That's the American way. That's what our founders did--they gave up when they couldn't get what they wanted and they sat on their asses and did nothing. That's why we have the 82nd best country in the world.

Clearly, Democracy isn't your thing.

Pale Rider wrote: "McCain has been through a 'last man standing' primary where he hasn't really been challenged, unless you count having the media ask you why you're so wonderful and strong is a challenge."

And that's exactly what the general election campaign is going to be like: the corporate-owned mass media will wage a campaign of character assassination against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama that will make the swift-boating of Kerry and the goring of Gore pale by comparison, while they simultaneously deify the right-wing extremist John McCain as a "moderate", the bought-and-paid-for tool of corporate lobbyists John McCain as an "independent", etc.

The corporate-owned mass media will get McCain close enough to steal the election.

The "hot topic of conversation" (Kevin's words) right now should not be silliness over whether one hard-fought primary campaign will "destroy" the Democratic Party, which is ludicrous. The hot topic of conversation should be what can be done to (1) counter the corporate-owned mass media's inevitable campaign of personal destruction against the Democratic nominee and their deification of McCain (which is already in full steam), and (2) how to prevent the Republicans from stealing the third close presidential election in a row.

Failing that, the "hot topic" should be how this country and the world may hope to survive the ultimate disaster of a McCain presidency, which will be essentially indistinguishable from a third (and perhaps fourth) term for Cheney/Bush, since McCain answers to the same masters as they do.

I didn't think I'd ever see someone holding up 1968 as a model to be emulated. Jeez!

I don't think a long primary season is especially harmful, and I have no problem with Clinton staying in it. I would, however, like to see it resolved before the convention. A messy convention with a superdelegate fight would be a very bad thing indeed.

i think the best argument Hill has that a chunk of her supporters will go to Mac is she doesn't win is racism. I caught a similar statistic mentioned above on MSNBC last night, before they seemingly rubbed it out of the memeworld. Of the one in five voters in Ohio who said that race was a factor in their vote, 8 out of ten of those voted for Hillbilly. That's about 16% of the people who voted Dem last night in Ohio. I think a good chuck of them are demonstrating that they could vote Rethuglicon over a black person. So much for core dems supporting Hill. Looks like there are throw back dixiecrats too.

ckelly, I didn't know you were a Texan...

Yup. Mired in a Democratic wasteland in N. Texas (I've tried to get to the oasis of Austin but no luck). The caucuses last night were a mess. Don't get me wrong, it was great to see a huge turnout - but there was mass confusion, misinformation and disorganization - kinda like the Bush administration. I'm not aware of "chicanery" as BlueGirl referenced at her site - just poor planning.

Unidentified commenter wrote: "I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. Period. I don't give a damn what happens. I am SICK and TIRED of holding my nose and voting for the least repulsive candidate."

If you stay home in the general election, you are voting for John McCain. If you prefer John McCain to Hillary Clinton, then have the guts to say so.

I'm a registered Green Party voter and a strong supporter of Dennis Kucinich. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are FAR from what I want. I would prefer to vote for the Green Party's presidential nominee in November. But if the race between McCain and Clinton-or-Obama is close in my state (Maryland), I will absolutely vote for the Democratic nominee.

The phrase "lesser of two evils" denigrates the real meaning of "evil". Obama and Clinton are not that great. They are both flawed. Neither one of them is likely to deliver even on what they are promising, and to my mind even their promises fall well short of what this country desperately needs.

John McCain, on the other hand, is really and truly evil. If you sit home in a snit and help John McCain attain the presidency of the USA, then you are also evil.

Well, anyway, check out my latest diary on the subject.

It's funny that everybody sees Clinton going negative. You guys need to get your bloggles off and look at what happened. Obama prevaricated about the NAFTA debacle, says he wants to put some Republicans in his cabinet, the Rezko trial starts and Obama won't play nice with the press, and Afghanistan is a nightmare and it turns out Obama didn't hold a single NATO meeting cuz he was campaigning -- these are facts on the public record. How is Clinton going negative by pointing this out? How is it negative that Clinton issues denial after denial about Obama is a Muslim rumors? Should she abandon her campaign and go on the "Obama is not a Muslim" 2008 Tour? And the 3 a.m. ad? Fear-mongering? Come on -- it's child's play. Bunch of whining babies. Check what comes out of Obama's camp day-in, day-out.

Shortstop:

"...up to 20 percent of white Democrats would vote for McCain if Obama's the nominee, but 10 percent of white Democrats would vote for McCain if Clinton's the nominee."

They can kiss my (pasty white) ass too.

It seems there are racists in every corner and political stripe in this country. Gee, to hear it, you'd think they are all in one party and in one part of the country. They are everywhere. And most dangerously among those who claim they are most enlightened. Indeed people vote their fears if fear is on the ballot.

And this thing is gonna go on to the vote rich state of Pennsylvania, the state known as Philly and Pittsburgh with Alabama in the middle? (That would be Alabama sans any black folks for a reality check). I shudder to recall what Bill said and did in SC...This crap is why I left off being a Republican a few years ago. And why I left the state of SC. (There are virulent bigots everywhere but that state seems especially proud of theirs.)

I don't want to hear any of it. I don't want to hear what I fear will be coming. Been there and done that.

I am sick of the Bush and Clinton dynasties. I am sick of sly race baiting. I am sick of the childish back and forth. We have serious issues to cope with going forward. We are in the 21st century and yet some people want to go back to the 19th century.

I am all for doing as Pale Rider suggests which is to let the process go on and let things settle out. I just don't want to see another compromise of something much larger to settle an inconvenient primary election. WIth the consequences be along the lines of what that little back room power brokering expediency in 1877 brought us. I sadly I am beyond trusting any of them really. I am not sure I trust the Clinton machine any more than I trust the Bush machine. Am I not up for democracy? I wouldn't say that. I am not up for winning at all costs rove style. That ain't democracy either.

...And another thing I wonder: Does McCain beat Hillary and Obama beats McCain in some rock-paper-scissors calculus that takes into account exactly that Experience thing? With the name Bush/Clinton ranking most onerous, followed by being an old man of the Senate, followed by someone new who maybe some people hope can get us beyond the playground tactics? Jus' sayin'.

All that said, I am not an Obamamaniac. I just want ANYONE who will act kinda like a grown up but who doesn't need a hearing aid. No un-PC offense intended to the AARP voting bloc that Ed Rendell hopes to exploit when this thing comes to PA.

That feels so hopeful and forward thinking, doesn't it?

Okay. My rant for the day is over. This Citizen Q Public hands it back to all you players. God help us. If there is a god.

Reading about Wallace and Humphrey reminded me of something that bugs me today. So many modern Evangelicals like to think that the movement of Evangelicals into politics was spurred by the Roe v Wade decision but that is simply false. Roe v Wade was publicly supported by many Evangelical leaders at the time.

The Evangelical movement into politics was spurred by a different court ruling that declared that any organization which practiced discrimination would by definition NOT be a charitable organization and would lose that legal status.

On the other side what spurred Johnson on to create the "Great Society" but also dishonestly expand the Vietnam war was his religious conviction (which I share) that the strong should help the weak.

True history is fascinating. Revisionist history is boring.

Grace: "...And I do want to see a woman as president in my lifetime!"

Well, sure, but not just any woman, and it certainly doesn't have to be this woman. I get very aggravated at 'feminists' who think it's True Feminism to vote for a female candidate primarily because she's a woman. Real feminists vote for the best candidate rather than the female candidate--but aren't necessarily afraid to vote for the female candidate if she is the best one. There is a difference. I've heard too many women claiming they're voting for what Hillary allegedly offers, but the first and only reason they actually detail is that they want to see a woman in the WH.
I really loathe the thought of Democrats rewarding Hillary for voting for the Iraq war by making her the Presidential nominee. After 5 years of righteous Democratic outrage over Iraq, what the hell does that signal to the Republicans?

While I'm sure that Kevin is right that in the larger scheme of things, namely the voting choices of the actual electorate, Democratic infighting will mean little, there certainly looks to be an imminent bloodbath among those of us who are intensely engaged in Democratic politics.

As I see it, it seems pretty certain how things will stand at the end of the primary process (unless something extraordinary happens):

1. Obama will lead in pledged delegates
2. Clinton will lead in popular vote -- at least when FL and MI are taken into account
3. Clinton will have won decisively all the major swing states: OH, PA, MI, and FL
4. Clinton will enjoy the perception of momentum.

Any way you look at these facts, you get a brutal battle as result.

They entail a fight over whether the delegates from FL and MI should be seated. (Possibly, much of the venom will be diluted if FL and MI can be decided by do-over elections.)

They will also entail an enormous battle over the significance of the popular vote vs. pledged delegates.

In the end, I see Hillary winning this fight on moral and political grounds - she will have the better "moral" argument because she will have "the will of the people" behind her, whereas Obama will have only the "can't change the rules in the middle of the game" argument behind him. (Mostly the "rules" argument loses anyway because the superdelegates are able to vote independently according to those very rules themselves). On political/electability grounds, Hillary also wins because she will have won decisively in the battleground states.

So it's hard to see how Hillary doesn't win the argument with a great many of the superdelegates, given these facts. I'd be pretty surprised if enough didn't buy into her argument that she would not win it.

But, given that Obama will have himself some very real arguments in his favor, the bitterness will be deep and endless among his supporters if he is denied the nomination.

Ergo, a bloodbath.

Okay: Kevin's original post was silly, because "and then we only lost by a little" isn't exactly a happy ending.

What he should have emphasized is this: the Dems in '68 -- and '80 -- and the Pubs in '76 had drawn-out fights that hurt, but it was because they were the INCUMBENTS. Intra-party brawls for the party holding the White House have always been fatal (see also 1912, 1952). On the other hand, stirring contests by the out-party have been essentially irrelevant to Fall outcomes -- yes, they've yielded losses when the opposing incumbent was popular (as in '64 or '84), but when the voters were inclined against the party holding the White House (as in '32, '52, '80 or '92), the fights of Spring or even at the convention were forgotten as voters went for the change they clearly craved. People need to stick to first principles: the vote in November will be an up or down vote on the GOP, whether Hillary or Barack is the Dem nominee. (Let me remind all those who scream "Candidate X is unelectable" that precisely the same was said about Reagan in '80 and Clinton in '92) Concentrating on this other stuff is being distracted by sideshows and missing the center ring.

For the record, I think Obama is still well-positioned to hold on and win this fight by decision. It's a war of attrition from here on, and Hillary's task is daunting -- she'd need to not just dominate the later contersts, but in landslide fashion -- something she didn't even manage on her good night last night. (Whatever happened to "Hillary must win TX and OH by wide margins"?) In card games terms, she's using her high cards to win the unimportant tricks...Obama's got a path to overall victory far more obvious than hers.

It's a bit disconcerting that Obama has failed to win in most of the large swing states (counting the fake contests in MI and FL), but, again, I don't think that's decisive in a year so massively geared against the GOP. No party has ever held onto the White House during a recession or an ongoing unpopular war; how McCain is expected to triumph in the face of both is something I'd like to hear the "We're doomed!" hysterics explain.

Humphrey didn't win the primaries so there weren't nine months of attack quotes by his fellow Democrats for Nixon and co. to run on in the fall.

I like the idea of Obama being a new kind of candidate and all, but it seems to me this is going to be a suicide mission if he allows Hillary to pummel him for the next four months, in that she can't possibly make a positive case on her own merits.

Right now he is fighting with one hand tied behind his back. All very noble and all, but now that the Clintonistas have confirmation such crap works, watch it multiply.

Americans have ADD. About time to ask them if they really want to revisit the days of Travelgate, Cattle Futures-gate, Vince Foster, Castle Grande, Billing Records, Lewinsky, Huang, Hsu, etc,

Ask why William Safire referred to her as a "congenital liar". Ask why Senator Rockefeller, chief of the Intelligence Com. doesn't want her answering that 3AM phone call.

The Clintons were vindictive, retributive, character assassinators long before Bush followed in their footsteps. The idea that Obama can make nice with this Pol Pot of a campaign IS naive.

Go nuclear, Barack.

The real question for dems is will there be enough time for those emotional wounds to heal so that the dems can take advantage of what should be a favorable climate for their ascension in November.

Exactly right. Our too-clever-by-half scheduling of the convention for August means that if this thing goes until then, emotions on both sides will be even rawer than they are now, our having had the benefit of several additional months in which everyone can work themselves into a frenzy.

I am not suggesting that this is sufficient reason to have this over with now. But it's a significant reality nonetheless--as is the fact that average voters, people less obsessed than we, will look at a whole spring and summer of intraparty wrangling and be turned off to Dems altogether. If McCain succeeds in continuing to pose as a reasonable and autonomous moderate (and we have no reason to think the media won't assist in perpetuating that scam), I can see a whole lot of people just saying, "Screw it; Dems can't do anything but fight. I'm voting for McCain."

On the subject of negative campaigning which people are discussing above...

There are reports now that Obama will go negative and highlight things from Clinton's past, but I'm not sure this is the right move.

In my opinion, the best way for Obama to go negative would be in such a way that it ties in to his campaign theme of turning the page.

He should paint Clinton as the Lobbyists' candidate. Run a series of ads tying her to them as tightly as he can.

It would be a respectable way of going negative, without losing his identity.

Screw it; Dems can't do anything but fight. I'm voting for McCain."

Or maybe "Screw them all." As the Stones famously sang about the "Stay at home voter" who see their choices as a choice "between cancer and polio." (For those of you too young to know those are lyrics to "Salt of the Earth"--about average folk, you know, the people who do the back breaking work and do the dying in wars.)

Frankly0:2. Clinton will lead in popular vote -- at least when FL and MI are taken into account
3. Clinton will have won decisively all the major swing states: OH, PA, MI, and FL

Love how FL and MI are always included in these calculations. But guess what? If you include FL at this point, Obama is still leading in the popular vote by 300,000 votes. Now, if you want to be really unfair and include MI, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot and received 0 votes, Hillary takes the lead by a mere 30,000.

If we redo MI and FL, Obama's popular vote lead will only widen. Then there's also Mississippi next week where Obama should do well.

While Pennsylvania is a big state with a lot of people, even if Hillary wins it 60-40, she won't overtake Obama in the popular vote.

Frankly0 I know you are a Clinton supporter but I would like to point out that Clinton's was the only name on the ballot in Michigan. Counting Michigan is a little deceptive. Then again you are a Hillary supporter.

But, given that Obama will have himself some very real arguments in his favor, the bitterness will be deep and endless among his supporters if he is denied the nomination.

His biggest argument is that he represents a true paradigm shift for the Democratic party, and a natural continuation of the spark ignited by Howard Dean. Specifically, he is running on the idea that a Democratic candidate must have broad national appeal , even in "insignificant" red states and among non-Democrats. Hillary represents the tried and but far from true strategy of winning the blue chips and then praying everything goes your way.

Despite the obvious criticism of "lack of substance" (which translates really to lack of detail), the idea of a post-partisan governing style for a president does have quite a bit of appeal for a culture war weary public. Concepts like "compassion" and "justice" and "truth" also lack substance because they give no clue as to what concrete actions would be taken in executing the duties of office. Republicans have no problem running on abstracts like "family values" and "accountability." They've been successful because they can present a narrative. Democrats are famously poor storytellers. What they give is recipes for how to address problems - sometimes the recipes make sense to voters, sometimes they don't. Clinton is providing very specific recipes. Obama is providing a description of the feast with no shopping lists or kitchen tools in sight.

I think the comparison to the conflict between Ford and Reagan is the most apt in terms of the actual dynamic. Clinton is clearly the Democrat's "establishment" candidate. Obama, even though his policy prescriptions would not differ markedly from Clinton, embodies the spirit of the next generation of Democrats. The difference between Obama in 2008 and Reagan in 1976, is that due to new organizational tools (i.e. the net) Obama has been able to catalyze, organize and energize the emerging movement that was born during the last election cycle.

I wouldn't count Obama out at all at this point. He may very well get a string of uninterrupted wins leading up to Pennsylvania and then either win or pull close there. Also, performance in the Democratic primary is not the same as performance in the general.

Hillary lives or dies by this election. Obama still has a future even if he is not the nominee.

I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. Period. I don't give a damn what happens. I am SICK and TIRED of holding my nose and voting for the least repulsive candidate.

And if I don't get to have sex with Natalie Portman, then I won't have sex again. I am SICK and TIRED of not getting exactly what I want, when I want it, every single time.....

Got a postelection note from a friend after reading SecAn's post:

Failing that, the "hot topic" should be how this country and the world may hope to survive the ultimate disaster of a McCain presidency, which will be essentially indistinguishable from a third (and perhaps fourth) term for Cheney/Bush, since McCain answers to the same masters as they do.

My friend didn't get the "chill out" message from Kevin. In fact, he was feeling rather apocalyptic and appended some lyrics from an 80s heavy metal band called Motorhead. The song is "Orgasmatron."

I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit.
I am the emperor of lies, you grovel at my feet.
I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain. And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate. I am the politician, and I decide your fate. I march before a martyred world, an army for the fight. I speak of great heroic days, of victory and might. I hold a banner drenched in blood, I urge you to be brave. I hold you to your destiny, I lead you to your grave. Your bones will build my palaces, your eyes will stud my crown. For I am Mars, the god of war, and I will cut you down.

I feel thoroughly chilled, now.

groundhog,

The Stones?! Who are they? I thought all you AARP people voted Republican.

Oh, wait, I are one of them. I forget . . .

A friend called me to lament about Sen. Clinton's wins last night. I think I said something similar about chilling out. My friend seemed to think McCain was going to win the presidency now, saying racism will prevent Obama from winning and Clinton hate will prevent Hillary from winning. That would be a reason to lament, and McCain's speech last night was scary if one thought it resonated with the electorate.

I once spent about ten days in Cleveland at a seminar for a company I worked for in the early Nineties. Most of the other participants were from the Cleveland area and all were of European descent. I related to them I had gone to a mall the night before and they all told me that was the Black mall and I should not have gone there. I have to think this type of racism is even worse in the Southern part of Ohio.

Although I originally preferred Hillary to Barack, after Kucinich, the momentum and huge crowds that Sen. Obama was able to generate persuaded me he had a better chance to win the election. But if Hillary wins the nomination, I still think she will beat McCain. She'd better. The Democratic nominaton race is very interesting now. I do not think prolonging the process hurts either candidates chances of winning the presidency. It keeps Democrats and their opposition to W. Bush's policies on the front page.

Hillary won last night. She won big in Ohio. She must be commended. Posted by: Ron Byers

Actually, if the exit polling is to be trusted, she actually lost. We all lost. Racists and old people (who may be vestigially racist) won. That's not good for the country and it certainly shows the Dems in Ohio are anything but liberal (of course, you scratch a blue collar "Dem" and you often find a whole lot of Archie Bunker).

People, we need liberalism now more than ever. We do not need middle-of-the-road shit, which is everything Clinton represents, because that ends up as meeting the assholes on the other side of the aisle half way. No to that. The Rethugs and conservatives must be marginalized if we are ever going to fix this country.

I'm a full on Obama supporter but if they can keep from getting too nasty in PA, having them both trash McCain there for 7 weeks will be awesome!

My heavens such tearing of hair and rending of garments! It ain't over! Hillary Clinton did not go negative. Barack Obama did not engage on the issues near and dear to we Ohioans, it was all about process and the process beat him. A brokered convention might be a fun thing. Try not to be so grim, a Democratic woman is doing well, this is something to celebrate not denigrate.

She should absolutely stay in the race. To bow out would disenfranchise the citizens who have not yet had their primaries. - Julie

I hope you recognize that this isn't an argument, it's an excuse. Taken to the logical conclusion what you're saying is that millions of Americans have already been disenfranchised in primary election after primary election because they live in states that happen to vote later in the process and by that time the nominee has already been decided (not to mention all the candidates that drop out after the first couple of primaries.

Tripp:

Please---Not AARP material just yet. I came of age during disco. Can anyone blame me for listening to Jagger???

As far as I am concerned, the GOP screwed itself with its nasty right wing blowhard stuff--winning at all costs. Truth and real folks be damned. So sorry to hear you are still on that bandwagon. McCain should have given Bush the finger and kept his dignity a long time ago IMHO. But he didn't. Oh well. Whatever.

Um, pardon me Kevin if I don't take much consolation from what was the start of the death spiral of the Democratic PArty for two generations...

McCain's speech last night was scary if one thought it resonated with the electorate.

Do you think it did? Serious question. I can't be objective on that, and anyway I literally fell asleep on the couch in the middle of it. Woke up when the hound produced a few mini-bays, which I guess were her reaction to it. (Our last dog was very much a Republican, but this one's a proven DFH.)

Ann L.

You must've been skimming Kevin's post. He didn't say we should all be chirpy. He said we should chill.

Brojo on March 5, 2008 at 12:03 PM:

I have to think this type of racism is even worse in the Southern part of Ohio.

It was when I lived there years ago. Hopefully time has changed the attitudes of the people up in those 'hollers, but I wouldn't count on it.

Joe on March 5, 2008 at 12:00 PM:

Love how FL and MI are always included in these calculations.

Me too. I live here in Michigan, and didn't have the chance to vote for the candidate I wanted to vote for....Clinton claiming a victory here is disingenuous.

I take exception with your characterizations, Kevin, of the two warring factions in the Democratic Party.

They are not "Far Left" and "Mainstream".

The two warring factions are "must have change (Obama, Edwards)" and "can't afford to change (DLC - Clinton) a.k.a. must compromise with Far-Right in order to accomplish anything".

Characterizing either faction (or ANY faction) as "mainstream" - in my opinion, is disingenuous, even dishonest.

In fact, what Clinton represents: Compromise with the Far-Right, pro-war, pro-NAFTA, pro-no-single-payer-healthcare. . . and her dirty lying campaign tactics - completely validates charges that are made against her that she is "Bush Lite".

Yes - we are STILL re-fighting 1968.

Clinton represents the old boomer generation holding on to their legacy of control.

Obama represents the post-boomers who would like to say: enough of this, please, let's move on, let's have some change, and NO: we do not need to compromise with the Far-Right in order to accomplish real change in America. George Washington didn't compromise with the British. Lincoln didn't compromise with the Confederates (and it got him assassinated).

America desperately wants to Move On. The question is: Is This Generation Strong Enough to beat the boomers back?

And if I don't get to have sex with Natalie Portman, then I won't have sex again. I am SICK and TIRED of not getting exactly what I want, when I want it, every single time..... Posted by: Stefan

Natalie Portman, huh? That's what they like in Ft. Lee? I would think that Scarlett Johansson was more to the liking of Guidos.

What scared me about McCain's speech was not the words so much as the tone. A tone that was reaching out to the Republicans who have sworn not to vote for a Republcan this year. Combined with the anti-Hillaryism and the racism of so many Americans, that was scary. Democrats need to goad McCain into acting out his rage in public. When McCain goes soft he appeals to (possibly) rational Republican moderates, which scares me.

I tell you what, I want change. I sure as hell am not going to be voting for Hillary W. McCain. Those lobbyist establishment types are the folks who got us into this mess. They don't have a clue as to how to get us out. I don't want more of the same. I want change. That means Barack Obama.

Obama has allowed Hillary to claim her experience is a feature of her candidacy. Obama needs to turn her experience into a bug.

The Clintons were vindictive, retributive, character assassinators long before Bush followed in their footsteps. The idea that Obama can make nice with this Pol Pot of a campaign IS naive. Go nuclear, Barack. filmex at 11:48 AM

Screw it; Dems can't do anything but fight. I'm voting for McCain."…groundhog at 11:57 AM

…..Racists and old people …. won….. we need liberalism now more than ever….Jeff II at 12:04 PM

…Hagel and Lugar are both rank conservatives. Despite Hagel's support for partial withdrawal from Iraq, there is simply no way to describe either of them as centrist, much less progressive. Hagel's lifetime score on progressive punch is 9.27 out of 100, while Lugar's is 12.46 out of 100. Both of them are only very slightly to the left of the craziest wingers out there.
Obama sends out regular signals that he will govern in a very centrist fashion. Running Harry and Louise ads and appointing Bush Dog Jim Cooper as a spokesperson on health care make that obvious enough. His praise of Reagan and bragging that he is more bipartisan than the DLC also make that clear. He has no problem letting you know that he's "not one of those people who cynically believes Bush went in only for the oil," that he isn't a "anti-military, 70s love-in." He scolds unknown progressives for thinking that "every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy," and reminded everyone that Social Security faces a crisis. Now, he is sending out signals that will be appoint Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar to incredibly powerful posts such as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.
Here is the thing: what counter-indications had Obama given that he will govern as a progressive? I honestly can't think of any….

No one has given any credit to Doonesbury for the shift away from Obama last week and towards Hillary. His satirical take on the poetry of Obama vs. the prose of Hillary was devastating.

The strip started last Monday and went for six days. I think that it perfectly summed up why voters, especially older voters, favor the substance of Hillary, over the rhetoric of Obama.

http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/02/26/

Sometimes ridicule can pierce a bubble.

Renegade Obama supporters are probably more likely to go third party--or, if they're first-time voters, just stay home.

I don't think this fully appreciates the damage that would be done, shortstop. If you haven't checked out Alter's column from yesterday, you really owe it to yourself to do so. Using Slate's handy little delegate calculator, he goes pretty much hogwild & spots Clinton major points for the rest of the primaries. Here's the thing -- even if she wins the next 16 contests by wildly implausible numbers, she still comes up short on both the popular vote & the delegate count, and this is entirely due to the fact that the Clinton team took a powder on everything after Super Tuesday. In order to win the nomination, she'll have to convince superdelegates to completely override the delegate system that's already in place. In other words, the case for candidacy rests on completely undemocratic terms -- her states matter, and his don't.

My point is that this won't simply discourage core groups of Democrats -- particularly these younger voters who have been so active -- from voting for Clinton. If Clinton wrangles the nomination without winning the popular vote, and, more importantly, more pledged delegates -- especially after having said that the delegate count is all that matters -- people won't be turning away from Clinton. They'll be turning away from the Democratic Party -- and, particularly among these new voters -- they'll be turning away from electoral politics. This kind of strategy runs the very grave risk of alienating an entire generation of Democratic voters. If this is what things come to, the only thing democratic about the party will be its name.

Spoken like a true Obama person

Could you at least try to figure out who you're quoting, and who they're quoting, before you post something like this?

I want change. I sure as hell am not going to be voting for Hillary W. McCain.

These two sentences contradict each other, of course. Helping to elect McCain isn't going to get you change, and it will get the country a whole lot more misery, corruption, war and totalitarianism. But by all means, vote your real priorities.

Hey Mike.

This one's for you.

Natalie Portman, huh? That's what they like in Ft. Lee? I would think that Scarlett Johansson was more to the liking of Guidos.

Oh, so that's how we're going to play this game, huh?

But really, would the Jersey Italians like Scarlett? A bit too pale and ethereal for them, no?

junebug said This kind of strategy runs the very grave risk of alienating an entire generation of Democratic voters.

But the base will be happy!

junebug:

I don't disagree with you, and I think you've summed up the situation pretty accurately. My post wasn't meant to be inclusive of all the damage possible in that scenario; I was only addressing Quinn's specific point that more Obama than Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if their candidate isn't chosen. At least among white Democrats, the opposite seems to be true by a margin of 2 to 1.

But really, would the Jersey Italians like Scarlett? A bit too pale and ethereal for them, no?
Posted by: Stefan

Let's just say, my goombah friend, that Ms. Johansson has a bit more "substantial presence" than the lovely Ms. Portman.

So, which do you like better (or feel more comfortable with) westbound on the GW or eastbound?

*

*

Ann wrote Hillary didn't go negative...?

No, her campaign released a photo of Obama in African garb, hoping the Muslim angle would be implied.

When asked on "60 Minutes" if Obama was a Muslin, Hillary said no, "not that I'm aware of".

Right up there with the rightwingnuts, "The Clintons weren't involved in the death of Vince Foster, "not that I'm aware of".

Hillary used the Karl Rove card implying that Obama couldn't be trusted with that 3Am phone call. Really, Hillary?

Bill Clinton in 2004: "Now, one of Clintons' laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

So much for Clintons' rules of politics. The over-riding rule, "By Any Means Necessary".

Hillary claimed earlier on she "was vetted" and "had not been found guilty of anything", leading one to wonder why you have to be vetted twenty times, and to ask, how she escaped prison to date.

Obama should run a series of ads hosted by a Professor of Criminal Science with each topic covered by an individual ad:

Travelgate (1993) In which Hillary purged competent civil servants under false charges to replace with loyalists, long before Bush got around to doing it in the Justice Dept.

Cattle Futures (1994) In which Hillary turned a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in highly speculative cattle-futures contracts in only nine months, which Hillary claimed to do on her own "after reading the Wall Street Journal".

It turned out the "investment" was handled by counsel for Tyson Foods, who absorbed her losses and created her immense profits, and had nothing (cough*cough) to do with Clinton changing state laws regarding chicken trucks that Tyson requested.

Removal of Vince Foster documents: Hillary claimed she had nothing to do with Foster's office being "scrubbed", until it was confirmed 3 months later she gave the order to Maggie Williams (now running her campaign!) to do it.

Castle Grande: (1995) Hillary claimed to know nothing about the scandal that sent Clinton associates to prison for fraud, and cost taxpayers millions. She later admitted doing 60 hours of legal work on the case, claiming she didn't recognize the bank by that name.

Billing records The billing records that could have sent Hillary to prison for falsifying documents and over-billing customers mysteriously vanished when subpoenaed, long before the Bush administration "lost" their e-mails.

All this prompted NYT columnist William Safire to write on January 8, 1996, that "our first lady ... is a congenital liar."

The next day Bill said he was so pissed at Safire for "insulting his wife", he wanted to "punch him in the nose".

Five days later Bill showed true respect for his wife when he began the first of his ten oral-sex lessons with Monica. He apparently preferred to pummel Monica in the face with his WMD rather than punch Safire's nose with his fist.

Obama should make it perfectly clear that there's no way Obama is ever going to match Hillary in the "experience" department.

Either way, with McBush or McClinton, we get a third Bush term. And war with Iran. Oh, the humanity.

I was only addressing Quinn's specific point that more Obama than Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if their candidate isn't chosen. At least among white Democrats, the opposite seems to be true by a margin of 2 to 1.

It's kind of a busy day for me, so forgive me for not weeding through the comments to locate your original point & its full context, but what you say raises some interesting questions. This could be heat of the moment kind of stuff that evaporates by the time the general election rolls around. Certainly, though, in the case of Obama, is it not possible that the 10% of his supporters who would go to McCain are Independents & Republicans who wouldn't be inclined to vote for another Democrat, anyway? Maybe that was your original point. Anyway, I'm just speculating.

shortstop, I am curious, why are my statements contradictory. If you assume that Hillary W. McCain is the status quo, why would saying that I am not going to vote for Hillary W McCain and that I want change be contradictory?

Obama should be painting Hillary Clinton and John McCain as being the candidates of the status quo. They are both going to try to claim the change mantle. If Obama lets the contest be about experience he loses to either and Hillary loses to McCain. Obama has to frame this as a change election and that he is the agent of change.

In the last couple of weeks Hillary has sucked Obama into debating experience. That has been a big mistake and is probably why he didn't put her away last night.

. . . Now we have the spectacle of liberal women fighting women over whether a black man is higher of the victim scale or lower so that women are justified in voting for him; Posted by: mhr

No we don't. But look at the best available voting data - old people and women (especially older women) are Clinton's "base." The younger voters and better educated voters, along with African-Americans, are Obama's base. In fact, I doubt that very many liberal women are supporting Clinton because she's not liberal.

BTW, you must be taking your meds today mhr. That was both a civil and coherent post.

Then again, could have been looping mud wrestling imagery when writing it.

Hey there Mr. Moderator, why did you pull mhr's last post? It wasn't salacious, grossly ignorant or offending in any way. I think you were just a bit trigger happy there. I refer you down to Kevin's post titled Kaput. Don't let it happen again.

This is a really poor comparison. In 1968 the Republicans were shattered after losing by a landslide in 1964, a defeat so profound in Congress that it enabled LBJ to pass his Great Society legislation without significant opposition. Not only that but George Wallace, as pointed out above, was drawing significant rightwing support in the presidential election away from Nixon who, despite his red-baiting credentials, was considered a Rockefeller Republican (and governed like one). Not only that but most of the radicals who disrupted the Democrats' Chicago convention weren't even Democrats (or even, like my uncle, old enough to vote) but were the equivalent of today's 'Anti-Globalists' who trashed downtown Seattle. It wasn't until '72 that the actual party became splintered by the antiwar faction within it. Further, in '68 the party was reeling in shock because RFK, the presumptive nominee, had just been assassinated; it's as if Hillary were locked in a tight battle with Kucinich because Obama had just been killed--and so the party chose Richardson instead.

groundhog wrote: "As the Stones famously sang about the 'Stay at home voter' who see their choices as a choice 'between cancer and polio.'"

The Stones also sang, "It must be hell, living in the world and suffering in the world -- like you."

osama_been_forgotten wrote: "Clinton represents the old boomer generation holding on to their legacy of control ... Is This Generation Strong Enough to beat the boomers back?"

Very funny. I'm a "boomer", born in 1954. I was going to Vietnam war protests when I was in high school. I didn't get tear-gassed, but my friends did. My first vote in a presidential election was for George McGovern in 1972. I am now a registered Green Party voter and a strong supporter of Dennis Kucinich. So you can take your stupid lame-ass mindless stereotypes of "boomers" and shove them where the sun don't shine.

Obama can simply press Clinton to release her tax returns and the records of what she did as First Lady, and keep pressing that point. It won't be viewed as overly negative, but Clinton will either refuse and look like she is hiding something or comply, and once her tax returns are out there, she's toast.

If you assume that Hillary W. McCain is the status quo, why would saying that I am not going to vote for Hillary W McCain and that I want change be contradictory?

Here's a hint--you're being a jackass.

Here's another hint--if you really think that, after everything that's happened in this country over the past 7 years, you're not serious about the future of this country.

If you're for Obama, fine. If you're against Hillary, have ass at it. If you take a stand for insanity and vote McCain, be my guest. But nothing is more sickening than this game of if I can't have it my way, then everyone gets to hear about how unhappy I am.

This is what the Internet age in America is all about--it allows mediocre people of all walks of life to rant and rave about their favorite subject--which is what they want right NOW for themselves!!!--and the rest of the world gets to read about it while trying to find insightful commentary. You are certainly free to do that--oh, but guess what? I'm free to say that there are some things bigger than your own need to let everyone know you're not getting what you want right now and in the quantity you want it.

But quit with the semantic games about who's who and what's what and quit being a self-centered, delusional jackass in public. Get your own blog and explain to your audience of none how things aren't making you happy on a daily basis.

….Obama connects with voters when he tells them what they know is true. …. Hillary is the say-anything and do-anything candidate….paxr55 at 10:58 AM

Every time he mentions "Sen. Clinton" he should mention "Sen. McCain." Tie them together in the same sentence 100 percent of the time. lina at 11:09 AM

I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. Period.…. Posted by: on March 5, 2008 at 11:14 AM

…..NYT columnist William Safire to write on January 8, 1996, that "our first lady ... is a congenital liar."….Reality Check at 12:58 PM

Hey Mike…. Lucy at 12:46 PM

Obama Adds Nato and Europe to Campaign Speeches
By Jeralyn
After last week's debate when Barack Obama acknowledged he hadn't held a single hearing on Nato and Afghanistan during his year as chair of the European Affairs subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because he was running for President, he's now giving lectures to Europe in his campaign speeches….
He even sounded like George W. Bush…

Mike wrote: Each and every 'scandal' you reference was disproven and discredited at the time.

Spoken like a true Bushevik. Lack of conviction is not the same as "disproven".

Safire may have written speeches for Nixon, but I'll take him over a serial liar who runs a misogynist victimization campaign, when there has never been an administration quite as misogynist as Clinton I.

It was the women (Hillary) that referred to the whack-a-mole of Bill's dalliances as "bimbo eruptions", and it was this misogynist administration that tarred Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica as sluts and liars, when we now know each spoke the truth.

Now anyone who opposes Hillary is a misogynist. As if any Obama supporter could ever compete with the Clintons in that department.

How's that Enemies List coming, Hillary? Hope it is ready on Day One.

Hey Mike…. Lucy at 12:46 PM

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state...Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, ....we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

....There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood....

It is amusing that those who voted for John Kerry in '04 despite his vote for authorization now suddenly try to act so pure and holy on that issue today.

What Hillary's supporters can't seem to grasp:

They don't get that there are millions of people who once contributed to Clintons, and once supported Clintons, that are supporting Obama now.

They can't quite take in that it's not naivete or misogyny, but heartbreak and reality that have led us to Obama.

They will never understand the irony of having to listen to Bill Clinton talk about "fairytales" when his Presidency was the biggest Grimm fairytale of all.

When the history of this nation is finalized, his administration will go down in history as one of the great unfulfilled promises of all times.

It is the Clinton supporter who is naive, or simply incalcitrant. They either weren't around then, or have chosen to buy into the romanticized Clinton myth.

The reality is that Clinton rode the dot.com bubble in claiming a vibrant economy in the same illusory manner Bush rode the housing bubble.

Clinton was able to leave a surplus, because he acquiesced to the GOP in passing the Welfare Reform Act, which pulled security from untold numbers of single mothers, and padded the surplus rather than offering job training or education in its place.

We who enabled Clinton I did so in the belief that it would mean no more loathsome Attorneys General such as Ed Meese. Instead, we were given Janet Reno, who created her own little holocaust in gassing and burning the women and children of Waco, then returned little Elian to Cuba at the point of a gun, after his mother drowned bringing him here.

We enabled Clinton believing that secrecy, retribution, vindictiveness and character assassination were hallmarks of Nixon, not a Democratic administration. We were proven wrong.

Nixon handed the Imperial baton to Clinton who handed it to Bush.

We watched as gays in the military and healthcare were set back by two decades, managing to alienate people of all political persuasion in the process.

How do you halt a Democratic control of the House and Senate which has lasted for 40 years? You elect a Clinton. Let's give Congress back to the Republicans this year, shall we? Nominate a Clinton!

We are not Obama romantics. We are realists. We lived the Clinton nightmare, and have to accept our part in having caused it.

We watched a Libertine President unable to control his urges, squandering the dreams of millions in the process.

We have watched the Clinton campaign this time around, and all our fears have been validated. Bad judgement, bad behavior, sheer incompetence.

Millions of Obama supporters are former Clinton supporters. Who do you think we were voting for in 1992?

We have learned the lesson. Either you weren't around, or like Hillary and her vote on Iran last September, you are simply incapable of learning.

In any case, when you have the empirical evidence regarding an Obama administration that we have regarding Clinton, then get back to us.

Spoken like a true Bushevik. Lack of conviction is not the same as "disproven"….filmex at 1:49 PM

It would be impossible to distinguish you from any garden variety Republican McCarthyite. Thus far you can called Clinton supporters Nazis and just about every name in the book. Your childish name-calling may be approved Obama shill techniques but is really a sign of immaturity and, frankly, stupidity. Flowers, Wiley, Jones were all discredited, as every knowledgeable person knows, and yes, those other charges were disproved.

Hey Mike, a lot of the anti-war votes went to Dean during the primaries before and they voted for Kerry after that because all of the candidates supported the way.

We who enabled Clinton I did so in the belief that it would mean no more loathsome Attorneys General such as Ed Meese. Instead, we were given Janet Reno, who created her own little holocaust in gassing and burning the women and children of Waco, then returned little Elian to Cuba at the point of a gun, after his mother drowned bringing him here.

Hey, thanks for coming back, "Jay."

Still mad about Waco, dude?

We are not Obama romantics. We are realists. We lived the Clinton nightmare, and have to accept our part in having caused it.

What part of peace and prosperity was the nightmare for you? I thought it was particularly hellish when we had all of those years of peace and prosperity, interrupted only by the bleating of a few wingnuts as to how difficult life was now that the country wasn't forcing schoolchildren to go hungry.

"Reality Check" is simply "Wingnut Lite" and the regurgitated talking points look like something copied and pasted off FreeRepublic.

Nice try. I'll gladly take some peace and prosperity over 100 years of war in Iraq and more of the same.

…. We lived the Clinton nightmare….Reality Check at 1:56 PM

Clinton was able to leave a surplus, because he acquiesced to the GOP in passing the Welfare Reform Act, which pulled security from untold numbers of single mothers, and padded the surplus rather than offering job training or education in its place. Posted by: Reality Check

I was with you until then and then thereafter.

"Welfare" payments of all kinds have never been but a minuscule part of the U.S. budget. Clinton was able to leave a surplus because tax rates were higher than they are now, and we experienced the greatest economic boom in U.S. history during his second term. We still would have had budget surpluses even if welfare had not been "reformed."

The only thing that will significantly alter the U.S. balance of payments, annual budget and national debt would be a dramatic reduction in military spending for a decade or more.

Meant 'war' not 'way'. Need more coffee!

Secular Animist:

Whoa, dude! What did I say to "stereotype" boomers? Climb off it man and step away from the flame. You need to read a tad more carefully. All I said I wasn't old enough for an AARP card when Tripp make a light comment to that fact. Nothing wrong with older folks but I ain't one yet and don't yet ask for the Senior Discount at Denny's.

Maybe one day I will.

I also said that I came of age during the disco era and listened to the Stones (implication that disco is crap--MY opinion, sorry if that offends you too) and also quoted their lyrics giving them props.I am sorry that when you were getting gassed for protesting I wasn't old enough to join you. My bad. I'm not worthyyyyy....

Jeeezuz...Read more carefully or maybe I will call you grandpa. Sounds like you are the one living in a world of pain...and could use a Mother's Little Helper as well. Get some bifocals while yer at it. I have some I can lend ya. BTW, you are all of about 6 yrs older than me (closer to menopause perhaps?--just a guess.) That was a joke.

Peace and prosperity, huh?

Blackhawk down and the dot.com bubble.

Yeah, gimme some more of that.

What flavors does that Kool Aid come in?

one big difference from 1968: the 24-hour media culture, that can magnify any statement or moment, into a continuous image.... (watch what you say)

Blackhawk down and the dot.com bubble.

Guess what, fucko? Those Rangers were in Mogadishu because George Herbert Walker Bush put them there and passed on the savings to the Clinton Administration. Give Clinton credit for getting our troops out of a fucking quagmire that was created by a Bush who thought "nation building" was a good fucking idea.

As for the dotcombubble--hey, it wouldn't have been such a hard hit if we hadn't pissed away the surplus that was passed on the Bush the Lesser.

I'd love to see the brand of kool-aid you're mainlining--got some more Freeper love to go with it?

Hope Muntz: "Further, in '68 the party was reeling in shock because RFK, the presumptive nominee, had just been assassinated; it's as if Hillary were locked in a tight battle with Kucinich because Obama had just been killed--and so the party chose Richardson instead."

Actually, no -- Humphrey was a declared candidate after LBJ withdrew, but he declined to take part in the primaries, because he was banking on the support of the D.C. establishment and thus had in his corner almost all what what we today call "superdelegates", which back then constituted a far larger proportion of each state's respective convention delegations than they do today. He was sill the presumptive favorite.

RFK's primary successes against Eugene McCarthy -- and we'd do well to remember that he did not declare his candidacy until forty years ago this month, March '68! -- posed the very real spectre of a brokered convention in Chicago, which would undoubtedly have favored him.

Further, we should also remember that RFK's appeal truly straddled party lines, and he would have been an attractive presidential candidate in the '68 general election to the large number of Republican moderates and liberals that still existed back then. His assassination was a true tragedy, because his removal made Richard Nixon into a viable candidate in November of that year.

Fight all the way to the convention. The Dems will actually be better for it. I remember 1968 very well. Both Dem contenders are much stronger candidates than HHH, and John McCain is no Nixon. (At least not until he tells us that he has a secret plan to end the war!)

...but Humphrey only got 42.7% of the popular vote. The divisions in Chicago pushed a lot of blue collar voters to Wallace.

Kevin:

Your comparison is quietly, coldly terrifying.

Chicago '68 didn't break the Democratic party, per se. However, it did absolutely break "the New Left." It left younger activists and voters feeling disenfranchised, jaded and cynical that the system itself was not only broken but un-fixable.

You know in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where Hunter S. Thompson talks about the unstoppable wave that finally crests, breaks and rolls back? He was talking about the Fall of 1968.

It's why the Students for a Democratic Society fell apart and spawned the Weathermen. It's why the Left increasingly fell apart and fragmented throughout 1969 and the early '70s (aided and abetted by help from COINTELPRO). It's why the Democrats couldn't get it together to beat Nixon in 1972. It's why it took Watergate, a sickening abuse of power that turned a Republican Congress against a Republican President, to finally shift the tide.

Chicago '68 was when Peace got drafted & Love caught the clap.

Trashing the Clinton's may be stylish and cute for some, but to the rest of us, we like smart, intelligent leaders who speak in sentences!

At least in 1968 the differences on Vietnam between the Left and the Daley types were palpable, real. These two don't have any real differences. It all comes down to identity politics, class, gender. "No, I want to be the first black president," "No, I get to be the first woman president." It's depressing.

Nice Site!
http://google.com