Kevin, read the post about Hillary being disgraceful, then this post again.

See the connection? Maybe this is why people will sit out the election if she wins the nomination this way. Still idiotic?

There's a yawning gap between the two on good-government and ethics. I was favorably inclined towards Clinton until I saw up-close how she has chosen to wage her campaign.

It's not really about the issues. It's at the mythic-symbolic level, where the stakes are the highest. To Obama supporters, Clinton represents a continuation of dynastic politics and the noxious sense of entitlement typical of strident Boomers from both parties - both of which have produced no good results for the country. To Clinton supporters, Obama is a presumptuous bounder who is trying to steal away something that Hillary worked for her entire life, just because he can turn a nice phrase. If that ain't fuel for a barn-burner, I'm not sure what is.

I was listening to CSPAN's election coverage last night and heard that Obama's staff were engaged in questionable practices, including showing up as election observers without the necessary paperwork and talking to people inside the required distance from the polling place. Then this morning I was listening to XM's POTUS channel and heard the conference call in which the Obama lawyer started accusing Clinton's people of complaining after every lost caucus, while Clinton's people described the lawsuit they have filed against Obama's people for violations of caucus procedures in Texas (such as obtaining caucus packets early and putting names on the sign-in sheets at the polling places during the voting).

I think these are signs of the heatedness of the supporters. I also think that Obama people have been claiming they don't do this stuff while accusing Clinton's staff of playing dirty. I want to make it clear that Obama's staff is not the aggrieved party here. Now that they are losing and must deal with their own disappointment and frustration, they are showing the strain.

In various comments sections, I've been seeing complaints that Clinton supporters are being bullied by coworkers into keeping quiet in the workplace. I have encountered that where I work and tried to put a stop to coercion early on, which has kept things relatively quiet. However, I believe that there will be disrupted friendships, family dysfunction and lots of hurt feelings before this is over. I am tempted to say it is on both sides, but I find the Obama folks far more aggressive and I'm not sure why that is -- maybe because they are young and care more.

So I'm an idiot if I truly believe Obama is underprepared? Wow

Read the Daily Kos story "27 Reasons I'm Divorcing The Clintons Today" This explains why the Clinton's can't be trusted.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/73629/1395/809/456851

"Playing the race card in South Carolina and elsewhere."
"Bill Clinton's fairy tale remark."
"The cactus tears in NH."

It's not rocket science Kevin. Hillary Clinton has had high negatives for a long time.

http://pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

The fact is a lot of Obama and former Edwards supporters were anti-Clinton first. Not liking Clinton is a legitimate position, shared by half of the country.

Robsalk is correct. Symbolically, the stakes are enormous.

To add the obvious, we are nominating either the first female or first black presidential candidate. In either case, this is a HUGE deal — perhaps an equally huge deal in either case, but not interchangeably so. Many people feel substantially more vested in one of these 'firsts' than the other.

It always amazes me that after years of Republican political tactics many Democrats still think that politics IS beanbag. Clinton is running for the nomination. Her opponent is Obama. The policy differences between them are minimal. What, exactly, is she supposed to do to win? Is it perfectly feasible for Obama to continue to hammer her as "old" Washington, part of the existing dysfunctional establishment, a return to the past, that her husband didn't accomplish much, but not ok for her to argue that he is inexperienced? Pretend for just a moment that you are she. What argument WOULD you use?

This all scares me because Democrats have a proven ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Will Democrats really sit out an election which, if we lose, puts John McCain in the White House? Which continues the war and the disastrous domestic and economic policies of the Bush Administration? Does our country really matter less than how much we hate the Democrats we don't love?

Clinton won yesterday's primary by 'Throwing the Kitchen Sink' at Obama, he tried to take the high road and paid the price. Now he will (according to the Washinton Post) be more 'aggressive' in 'defining' Senator Clinton, and he will likely have to spend a lot of $$ to do it. I will tell you if this thing continues on the way it is now, it will get very ugly indeed, interparty fights do not always end in unity (see Republicans 1964) they can tear a party apart. I am very worried that is exactly what we will be seeing in the next weeks. We have a chance in this next election cycle to put America on a new path, but if the Democratic party allows this to continue it is likely an opportunity that will be lost.

The Obamamaniacs are almost like a self-parody now. KD writes a perfectly sensible post about how the two candidates are really not that far apart in the issues, that, historically, this is a very mild contest between two very strong candidates, and that come November, the overwhelming majority of Democrats will happiily pull the lever for our candidate, even if it's the other one than who we are supporting in the primaries - and they immediately start in with the whining about how evil the Clintons are. Sad.

is being an idiot.

Or perhaps more accurately: is not actually a Democrat.

The wars John McCain wants to launch will kill real, live Americans. If you don't care enough about the welfare of those fellow citizens to hold your nose and vote for his opponent, you are deeply, deeply selfish.

So I'm an idiot if I truly believe Obama is underprepared? Wow

If Obama gets the nomination and you decide to sit it out or vote for McCain or a vanity candidate like Nader instead of him then, yes, you are an idiot.

His platform is 99% indistinguishable from Clinton's. If you'd sit out the election rather than vote for him -- and by extension, almost all the issues Clinton supports -- then yes, you are an idiot.

I'll tell you what, Republicans don't think that they're basically the same. At all.

The vitriol is passed back and forth between probably less than 2 million Americans that read and comment in political blogs. In other words, it is trivial.

Kevin, you are naive. Check out Jack and Jill Politics. If you think Clinton can win the general election without the black vote, you are dreaming. And she isn't going to be forgiven for racist ads.

Clinton isn't a smart politican. She is a coniving and duplicious one who focuses fiercely on the ruthless attainment of a short term goals without regard to the big picture. To win in Ohio she used racism and fearmongering. To win in New Hampshire she used faux victimization and indentity politics. Between now and Pennsylvannia she will do absolutely anything to defame Obam and his supporters.

And you think we are all going to turn out a support her in Novemeber?

No. She won't be able to keep the support of the new voters that Obama pulled in because they are new and don't have deep roots in our party. Besides a bif element in the excitement over Obama is that he is the people powered candidate. Hillary is just the same old crap.Also she won't get the support of life long Democrats like me who want Democratic candidates to behave like Democrats.. I'll put heart and soul into Congressional races all over the country but I won't vote for a self serving R-lite Rove clone, who, on top of everything else, is unelectable.

Don't dismiss the seriousness of the error she is making. It is not good politics for the candidate to subject the other candidate and all of that candidate's suppporters to the kind of abusive tactics that the Republicans have been using against liberals. Short term smart, maybe, but long term toxic.

Perry, in a previous thread you promised that you won't hang out here any longer, until after the election, because Kevin dissed your candidate. How come you don't keep your promises? Hmm?

Small differences in policy? Uh, how about foreign policy?

Who's to say that Hillary won't also expand the Middle East war like McCain promises? She's got quite a record of experience: voting for the Iraq War, voting to name Iranians as terrorists. Now, who is the candidate who was against the war from the beginning?

Also, I totally disagree with the idea that Hillary has been a "great candidate." She was, at first, the inevitable candidate who has since proved quite evitable indeed. She had no plan after Super Tuesday. She ran out of money, forcing her to loan herself campaign cash. Her husband pissed away his own legacy as "the first black president" to race-bait. The campaign has tried to change the rules midstream by calling the irrelevant Florida and Michigan primaries "wins" and constantly belittles the contests she did not win (caucuses don't matter, black votes don't matter, small states don't matter).

You're okay with all of this, Kevin? Yeesh.

Last year, I was still favorably disposed to Sen. Clinton, but I have really soured towards her over the last 2 months or so. I've seen more of her, and I don't like what I see. I actively dislike her now.

This doesn't mean that I'm not going to show up and vote for her if she somehow ends up being the nominee, but I'm probably not going to be moved to contribute to her campaign, put a sticker on my car, or volunteer. I'll just go back to being apolitical.

and they immediately start in with the whining about how evil the Clintons are. Sad.

I agree that some (maybe alot) of the claims coming out of the anti-Clinton camp are extreme, and delusional. Let's remember though, that lefty blogs were perfectly happy to play host to nonsensical screeds about George Bush and Dick Cheney.

But some of us really, really dislike Hillary Clinton. The fact that she is a strong candidate has nothing to do with it. If it was Dick Gephart, or Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman in her position today, it wouldn't change the fact that to a lot of active democrats, these candidates still suck ass.

And she isn't going to be forgiven for racist ads

What racist ads are those? Let's play right into Rove's hands, shall we?

Certainly Hillary Clinton can legitimately argue about Obama's experience. But when she says that she and John McCain are experienced and Obama isn't, that's amazingly stupid, unless she would prefer a McCain victory and a 2012 run to an Obama victory.

I suggest that the candidates compete to see who can most effectively bring down John McCain, instead of the other way around.

The differences are largely small, yes, but not always. Consider Israel-Palestine, where HRC has pledged that she wants all of Jerusalem to go to the Israelis. That's a big deal. It's not that HRC is evil - I don't think she is. But I don't think we do them justice by ignoring small but very important differences between the two.

Really important post.

Both camps have their true believers. Any one who thinks it's better to vote for Nader or not vote at all deserves to get 4 more years of stuff bush43 has jammed down our throats.

Support your candidate certainly, but when the general election rolls around support your team. Any Democratic candidate is so head and shoulders above the fascists running the Republican party these days that there is no excuse not to proudly vote for the Democrat. If you have to, hold your nose & vote.

Kevin,

You have, for a long time, been my absolute favorite political blogger whose wisdom, and insights I value above just about anyone one else. I have been reading your posts on a daily basis since the CalPundit days - but I have to say I’ve been completely perplexed by this opinion of yours (and this is, of course, not the first time you’ve expressed it).

PRACTICALLY ALL THE BIG TIME LIBERAL HAWKS ARE IN HER CAMP......THERE’S A REASON FOR THIS.

THE LIBERAL HAWK SENSIBILITY OF HER NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF IS A HUGE, ABSOLUTELY HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM and it will lead to a very different policy toward ,most notably, Iran and Israel then a Obama Administration would most likely pursue.

FOR YEARS YOU, DUNCAN, JOSH AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN RELENTLESS HARPING ON Pollack, O’Hanlon, Peter Beinart, and the other liberal hawks yet have been grossly negligent throughout the primaries in not pointing out and drawing attention to the fact that these people, along with the DLC (which most of your readership also despises) are Hillary’s political tribe.

I would gladly vote for just about any Democrat except for Hillary Clinton. In the highly unlikely even that someone besides Obama or Clinton got the D nomination at a brokered convention I would gleefully vote for that person in November. It isn't about Obama or bust. It is about Hillary not deserving my vote. After eight years of hating on the Bushies for their "win at all costs" philosophy and bullshit talking points it sickens me to see the Clinton campaign doing the same exact things. I'd rather an R take the WH then condone that kind of behavior. If that makes me an idiot then so be it.

The differences may be minimal from one angle.

But from another, the differences have become vast.

Obama will not get certain voters who have voted for her, including low information voters who are inherently racist (SE Ohio, for example), 'Limbaugh Democrats-for-a-day', and may struggle with Latinos, who might go for McCain.

Clinton will not be energized by the same base Obama is energized by. African Americans will not turn out in numbers, but I don't think she's worried about that. And the younger, avid generation he's kicking up into a furor won't bother for her. I think she thinks they will, but they won't.

because anybody who's seriously thinking about sitting out this election if their guy doesn't win is being an idiot.

From where I sit it looks like you'd have to be an amoral sociopath (or mirror-image of a Bush supporter) to support the kind of tactics Hillary is using.

Yes, Obama and Clinton are very similar in their stand on the issues. If the race was limited to the two of them talking about their stand on the issues, their experience, their vision for the country, then there probably wouldn't be nearly this level of vitriol.

Most of this divisiveness is the creation of the Clinton campaign. When Clinton found herself behind, she decided to go negative and throw the 'kitchen sink' at Obama. You get the impression that the Clintons will do or say anything to get elected. Play the race card. Accuse Obama of plagiarism in the same debate Hillary plagiarizes lines from Edwards. Stand on stage (cf. Bob Jones) with someone who does a hate-filled rant about Obama and his supporters that basically parodies the worst kind of Republican stereotypes of liberals ("Prius-driving, latte drinking, Birkenstock wearing..."), calling Obama's supporters 'cult followers', calling his campaign a 'fad', referring to the last dozen states Obama won as 'insignificant', comparing Obama to Rove and Bush, and so on.

Or more correctly, what kind of sociopathic idiot would you have to be NOT to take offense at that kind of behavior? At this point there doesn't appear to be that much difference between Clinton's supporters and Bush's supporters - they are supporting a candidate who lies, cheats, and smears her opponents. They're fine with a candidate who will do or say anything to win - the ends justify the means.

Some of us would like to get away from the last 20 years of Bush/Clinton divisiveness. Apparently many don't mind the lies, sleaze and scandals if it's their party/candidate who is doing it.

Seriously, how can anyone of good conscience vote in favor of that now or in a general election?

What racist ads are those?

Clinton has done nothing in this campaign that can even reasonably be construed as racist. As someone who actually works in video production, the idea floating around that the Clinton camp altered Obama to make him look "blacker" is complete and utter bullshit.

I'm probably repeating here, but I'd like to state that my unwillingness to submit to Hillary the inevitable has nothing to do with her personality nor her policy proposals. It has everything to do with the Bill/Hillary dynamic. I can't imagine Bill staying on the sidelines (as he certainly hasn't in this campaign, decorum to the wind), and I think the resulting confusion would lead to a disastrous presidency. Also, the argument that because she was first lady means she has direct experience of presidential leadership is to me hogwash. I'm a married woman. I couldn't do my husband's job, period. Nor could he do mine. We are two distinct entities.

Obama was not my first choice, nor my second. I like his foreign policy instincts. He seems to me to have good judgment. But, to imply that distaste at an HRC administration is ungrounded is unfounded. I'm sure there are those on Clinton's side with a similar set of objections to Obama.

We'd all like the nomination to be over because we're tired of it. We'd all like to focus on McCain as the chameleon he is, forked tongue and all. Another seven weeks or more really is giving McCain a free pass, though granted for that time only. If Hillary can keep herself (and Bill and all her "unknown" staffers) in line, and run a clean fight, I know I'll feel the better for voting for her in November. If she can't, she's no better than McCain, because she's only in it to win, not for the good of those who elect her. It's the fear of what she may do, what she has hinted she will do, and what she has almost outright promised to do that has wrought this divisiveness in my opinion.

Enough.

Agree with the others who said that the stakes aren't small-- they're about the structure, priorities, breadth, operations, and basic character of the Democratic Party going forward, which is a damned big deal. There's a massive generational shift that is happening sooner rather than later thanks to the corruption of the Bush GOP; the boomers aren't ready to let go (not that they ever will be, but no surprise there), but the long-term loyalty & energy of an even larger group is at risk.

I don't know if there's any way to really make the powerpoint jockeys that seem to form the Democrats' core understand this, but a political party is not just a list of policy proposals. I repeat, a political party is not just a list of policy proposals. Say it five times before every meal until it starts to make sense. Trust me, the GOP knows this perfectly well, and it is the reason they routinely kick our asses electorally, even with their spectacular incompetence and malfeasance.

I swear, if modern Dems somehow traveled back in time & replaced the Founders, we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen" and celebrating having renegotiated Stamp Act revenue allocation as our finest hour.

Amen Kevin!

Idiots who say they won't support either candidate in the fall are the same idiots who voted for Nader in the last election arguing that it did not matter who won because both Gore and Bush were equally bad.

The stuff going on right now is NOTHING. I think the Obama folks are too young to realize this. Hell, George Bush's campaign accused McCain of having fathered a black child and being a Manchurian candidate in 2000. Now they are hugging like long lost brothers on T.V.

I like Obama and I voted for Obama, but he is a politician just like Hillary. He lost Ohio because he lied about the Nafta stuff and it looks like he has told a few white lies about Rezko. I don't care. I'll still vote for him in the fall, but let's not pretend he isn't a candidate with flaws and if Hillary can take him down with one red phone ad then McCain will chew him up and spit him out.

oooooooohhhhhhhhhh Augustus!

I'm an amoral sociopath. Talk like that is sure going to convince me of the superiority of your candidate choice?

Clinton voted for AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman! They're not just two votes like any other (or one and a half: Obama didn't vote on Kyl-Lieberman).

This is not a difference? Has anyone noticed there's a war going on?

Clinton and her "braintrust" (Holbrooke? Albright? Ross? Pollack?) are unapologetic proponents of neocon foreign policy, just a more "competent" version.

This desire to elide the difference -- the only crucial difference -- between the two candidates feels like a conspiracy against the obvious.

I'd rather an R take the WH then condone that kind of behavior. If that makes me an idiot then so be it.

Well, you're an idiot. Actually, you're worse: your entire screed said nothing about the substantive policies of McCain, who you would be choosing to put in the Presidency, and whether the country would be better, or worse off, for having him in there. Perhaps you could make the argument that having HRC would be worse. But you haven't made that argument. In other words, you've got your purity, and the country be damned. Well, fuck you and your purity. I hope Obama wins, but if not, I actually give a shit about where this country goes, and under McCain it will continue its 8-year slide into disgrace and disrepute. I can be an adult and try to do what I can to stop that from happening.

I'd be curious to know how much of the hate that's going around is real, and how much is a reaction to the nasty words thrown around by supporters and detractors in the two camps.

I grew up with Hillary Clinton, and have never liked her at all to be honest. Kevin, maybe you should do a poll on the source of the hate. :)

massive generational shift that is happening sooner rather than later thanks to the corruption of the Bush GOP

So you throw out anyone in the Dem party with experience? Because the Bush GOP is corrupt?

the boomers aren't ready to let go

Meaning what, exactly. 7 years from retirement age (and I'm at the "old" end of the boomer scale, I've been told) and I'm supposed to "let go?" Of what?

Look. I'll vote for Obama, I'll vote for Clinton, I'll vote for fucking Rin-Tin-Tin before I'll vote for McCain. But spare me the generational venom, please?

You know what card Obama could play if he really wanted to play dirty?

The "Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism" card.

It's dirty and right out of the Republican play-book, but it works.

I can already envision the ads showing images of the aftermath of all the various terrorist attacks throughout the 90's and a narrator describing the escalating threat from radical Islam and the Clinton administration's ineffectiveness in combating it, ultimately leading up to 9/11.

It's a card he could play....but won't. Because, unlike Hillary, he's not willing to go into the gutter with Rovian style attacks to get the nomination.

Besides, Hillary's still drawing dead, and cannot catch Obama.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree--it's got nothing to do with politics, political activism or the primary season itself. Those of us who have been in primary politics before are baffled by this fringe element that won't support the nominee of the party that represents their values.

Do you know what has changed? The ability of people who normally wouldn't be heard from to demand attention on blog threads and places like Daily Kos. They are usually of a shit-headed mentality that hasn't been winnowed out of the crowd and they tend to be more self-centered and single-issue driven than before.

Where you could once marginalize these people--and not count on them to vote because they're not there to participate and move something forward because they're there to tear something down--now you have to put up with them. And where the tendency at first is to tolerate it, what you end up doing is realizing that these are cranks and self-centered people who are only doing what they're doing because it feeds their need to have influence, power and to be courted.

None of this is about electing the right person President--it's all about them and their need to be the person who decides for everyone else who should be elected.

The voice of the obscure shithead has been amplified in this cycle, and that's all it is. They have always been there. These shitheads were stomping around in 1960, convinced that an inexperienced Jack Kennedy was all wrong and that if the party didn't listen to them and nominate Stevenson for a third and final try because he was their guy, well, they weren't going to vote, period.

Probably better to just keep flaming them and humiliating them. After all, we don't want their shitheadedness to take root.

i'm not sitting this election out if hilary wins. i'm voting for mccain.

i'm not a partisan democrat. i voted for obama in the primary, but if hilary wins, i can vote for mccain. it's not a big deal.

Really?

Obama supporters have been called: Religious fanatics, naive, irrelevant, enemies of democracy, and republicans. Many people with more activist down-up views have been marginalized, consciously marginalized by the Clinton style.

Differences? A fucking truck load.

Will I vote for HRC.... probably. It's actually less likely than I would have 2 weeks ago. But I sure as hell wouldn't lift a single finger to help bloggers or personalities such as Taylor Marsh or Susanhu over at MyDD.

"Support your candidate certainly, but when the general election rolls around support your team."

You just don't get it. Millions of people who support Obama are doing so precisely because they don't believe they have a team. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats do it for us, and we're sick of the sort of partisan fascism that expects us to just shut up and fall in line like usual.

We're either registered Independent, or we're Democrats who vote independently, and Obama speaks directly to our concerns about the special interests and gridlock in Washington. In Obama, we see a candidate who presents a fresh vision, which is what we've desperately craved for years, that at least tries to go beyond divisive party politics. To us, Clinton is just another Blue-State Democrat who is aligned with the status quo and Democratic special interests. And we're tired of holding our noses and having to vote for that sort of candidate.

We know the country is on fire, but it's not just burning because of the Iraq War and tanking economy. It's also being destroyed by special interests and partisan warfare, and those are issues that only Obama seems willing to address. You may think that Clinton would be better than McCain. But not on the issues that matter most to us. If she's the Democratic nominee, we won't have any voice in the general election (again) and little incentive to vote for anyone in November.

Posted by: on March 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM

That was me. Hit "send" too fast

i voted for obama in the primary, but if hilary wins, i can vote for mccain. it's not a big deal.

If it's not a big deal to you, stay home. Personal pique is not a reason to vote.

There truly is a big Boomer vs. New Generation thing going on here. It's feeding into Clinton's (and Steinem's, and Billie Jean King's...) enormous sense of entitlement, not to mention utterly egregious things like 'being a white woman is much worse than being a black person' phraseology.

What's been amusing to me, for months now, is that HRC will kill the hopes of a new generation (or two) that still hasn't seen much it likes in politics, in order for it to be 'her turn'. It seems to be her belief that she, as a white woman, has earned it - somehow, when it's not apparent how, if she weren't a Clinton and if her husband hadn't been president, she'd even be close to this race - and that Obama should wait eight years for his chance to run. There's this huge amount of anger toward him and his supporters because of this, which is amazing. THE GALL OF THIS GUY! THE GALL OF THESE PEOPLE! When there isn't much to her at all, beyond failed health care, a bad attitude, and an awful non-NIE-reading vote for the Iraq War.

It's the entitlement, peoplez! Therefore, vote for Hilary!

I can't honestly see anything else to her at this point.

Kevin,

Big difference numero uno, and it's a doozy no matter how Clinton's opponents try to spin it, is that Clinton enabled Bush's preemptive war in Iraq and Obama did not.

Ms. Clinton wants to be judged by actions, not speeches. Well, here is a paragraph from her "victory speech" last night, with its substantive subtext included in parentheses.

"We will do what it takes, and we will, once again, make the kind of progress that America deserves (by botching our quest for universal healthcare). We're going to protect our country and preserve our Constitution (by enabling the doctrine of preemptive war, by demonizing nations like Iran rather than engaging them diplomatically, and by failing to vigorously oppose immunity for corporate lawbreakers). We're going to lead with our values (by smearing our opponents with allusions to their past drug use and by exploiting unfounded rumors about their religious beliefs.)"

It is because Clinton's vaunted experience is comprised of "actions" such as these that I supported first Edwards, then Obama. Every presidential campaign eventually comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. The gap between McCain and Clinton will be depressingly narrow, however.

Come November I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but it will be with a sense of great opportunities lost.

Kevin,

I resent when you say:

"because anybody who's seriously thinking about sitting out this election if their guy doesn't win is being an idiot."

You don't think that we have a right to be disillusioned if Clinton gets the nomination? We watched the Democratic Party blow it on a terrible candidate 4 years ago. Some of us were stupid enough, once our disappointment wore off, to put a lot of time and effort into helping the Kerry campaign.

What consitutes sitting out an election? Is my vote enough to avoid your blanket condemnation? Activists like me won't give any money to a Clinton campaign. Nor will we do anything in our activst circles to help her campaign.

This makes rational sense considering she is surrounded by fools like Mark Penn and Terry McCauliffe who would dismantle the 50 state structure that Dean built. It makes rational sense considering the corporate, big money focus of her campaign. It makes rational sense considering this nation needed a dramatic change in leadership and direction; we didn't need another moderate Democrat, nor another dynasty in the Whitehouse.

Sometimes moderation means nothing.

If Hillary wins, I hope Obama leads the states that voted for him in seceding, sparking a new Civil War, and I hope the pro-Obama forces win that war, and hope Obama crushes Hillary to bits under the treads of his tank.

Only then can the politics of hope that Obama represents prevail.

Do any of you like SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts?
How about Alito? What about Scalia?

The next President will likely name TWO Supreme Court Justices. That's because two of the most liberal Justices will probably retire: Stevens & Ginsberg.

Who do you want picking your next Supreme Court Justices, a democrat or a republican? If you are like me and feel that the Roberts Court has led us to a Totalitarian nightmare, you had better think long and hard about not supporting a Democratic ticket in November. Cause if it's McBush picken, we are screwed as a nation.

I'm supposed to "let go?" Of what?

Well, the embarrassingly weak organization that the Democratic Party has become over the past forty years would be a nice start. I'm an Xer & therefore not part of today's youth in any meaningful way, but there's a reason my cohort never got really attached to boomers' version of liberalism. It's basically the same answer I have to HRC's 35-years-of-change claim: you either helped the GOP completely dominate American politics, or failed to stop them. IOW, there aren't that many strong arguments for keeping people like her in charge. Either start cultivating a generation that may be able to do better, or dismiss them out of hand and watch the legacy of failure continue.

(and before people start squawking in outrage, yes, there are many very good, principled boomers like Howard Dean & Al Gore, but it's telling that they've been so often treated with contempt by much of their own cohort)

Whoops - first line of my last post: "opponents" should read "proponents".

In other words, you've got your purity, and the country be damned. Well, fuck you and your purity.

I am not willing to vote for a candidate I have no respect for just because she has a D next to her name. I have waited eight years for a President I respect I can wait another four years.

It's the appointments, stupid!

When will we Democrats wake up and realize that what matters is not which individual becomes President. What matters is which party controls the White House, and thus thousands of key appointments all through the executve and judicial branches.

Voting for a Republican (or not voting) just because you have a personal animosity towards the eventual candidate is the height of self-destructive stupidity. No Republican would be that dumb.

As an Obama supporter, I am not "angry" at Hillary supporters. I was quite cordial and accommodating to the Clinton precinct captain last night at the caucus. I consulted with her on any action that might seem tilting favor to one candidate or the other before we could officially do so, to make sure that the process was fair for all.

Because in my mind, we're all Democrats. Sure, we want our respective candidate to get the nomination, but I ultimately want a Democrat to win in November. If Clinton is the nominee, then I'll vote for her and help as I can. Will I be as enthusiastic as I am about Obama. Probably not. But depending on how the fight with McCain goes, I may be.

I want people to remember me, as an Obama supporter, as one who is for the Democrats as well as my candidate. I was taught by my Obama organizers to comport myself with class and run everything on the up-and-up. So, you won't see me slinging mud -- just talking up why I think Obama is the best choice in a positive way, and countering lies with facts, not 'truthiness'.

It is about Hillary not deserving my vote.

It's not about you. It's about the Americans who will die in the wars John McCain wants to launch. If you can't overcome personal pique to vote for his Democratic opponent, whoever that is, you are deeply self-centered.

You're supposed to vote in the general with your country's welfare in mind. It's not the time to be punishing the Democratic party for being imperfect in your eyes. In the primaries, OK. Not in the general.

There are great differences between the candidates ...

These differences are not intangible. Check out Berman's piece in the Nation - it speaks to contrasting visions of the Democratic party held by both of the candidates.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/berman

Obama's campaign funding based on small donors is a major difference between the candidates. His focus on winning all 50 states rather than just 51% is a major difference between the candidates.

If Obama wins, I'll join the party. Why? - because Obama has the capability to change the party from its current guise of big donor-centric delivery system of focus-grouped Bush-enabling pablum. Clinton doesn't present the same opportunity, despite the candidates rhetorical similarities on policy.

The main reason I do not support Clinton is that she epitomizes what is wrong with the Democratic party post-9/11. Iraq, Iran, her ridiculous triangulation on flag burning and equivocations on torture..on and on. If Democrats like her put one-tenth of the energy she has put into destroying Obama into stopping Bush, we wouldn't be in this mess and he would have been impeached 2 years ago. I guess it is easier to blame the GOP for everything, whine and whine, and then enable them all of the way.

Oh, yeah, did I mention that it isn't too smart to put up a nominee that probably 65% of the country HATES before the race even begins?

This doesn't mean Obama is perfect, but if you really think that there is "no real difference" between the two, you are delusional.

What matters is which party controls the White House, and thus thousands of key appointments all through the executve and judicial branches.

We have tons of Hillary Clinton democrats in Congress, and they suck. They roll over every time because they have no spine are more comfortable screwing over their constituents than acting in a way that would take an ounce of political courage.

As long as there is a chance to put someone in that doesn't fit the jellyfish mold of typical democrats, you shouldn't expect people who want to change to fall in line.

While I was at work the afternoon of Superbowl Sunday, my husband received a phone call from a Hillary Clinton supporter. She did not have a single thing to say about Hillary Clinton; she just wanted to tell him all the reasons he shouldn't vote for Barak Obama.

I've noticed this attitude a lot--if you don't support Clinton, then the Clinton people *hate* you. On our very Democratic street, only one campaign sign showed up: a Hillary sign two doors down in the yard of a neighbor who we know fairly well. We were going to put a Obama sticker on our car, but felt like it'd be picking a fight with her.

For all the "cult" taunts thrown at Obama people, Hillary supporters are the ones who are far too reminiscent of the time after 9/11 into the Iraq war when you didn't talk politics over lunch at a restaurant because it could turn into an argument with a complete stranger who might overhear you and challenge your love of country.

I've had enough of that. I'll probably vote for her if she gets the nomination, but I won't work for her the way I did for Kerry and would for Obama. And it might kill my interest in politics for good, frankly.

From MNPundit:

Will I vote for HRC....probably

Fortunately you won't need to. Yesterday Hillary needed to win BIG and failed to do that. People might think that's spin, but consider this fact:

Hillary only made up a grand total of 8 or 9 delegates in yesterday's races.

Hell, Obama picked up 8 in Hawaii alone a couple of weeks back, and is likely to pick up more than that in Mississippi next week. In terms of delegates, yesterday was a huge disappointment for Hillary, and really was the final nail in the coffin for her campaign despite all the hoopla going on right now.

She's done.

ABQkevin has it exactly right. The core party voters are going to support whomever the candidate is, even if they have to hold their noses to do it. But elections are decided by independants, and lots of them have been voting in the Democratic primary as well. And that's where Obama has a significant edge.

A lot of those voters either stay home or switch to McCain if Hillary is the nominee.

Further, while their policies on many issues are very similar (although I heartily agree with those who think there's a real and large difference on foreign policy), that doesn't mean their electoral prospects are similar. Obama is far more electable than Hillary. If she's the nominee, the press coverage is going to be 2000 all over again, except more so. With endless stupid swipes at her and fawning coverage of McCain that ignores all of his obvious flaws.

I've actually infrequently gotten my preferred choice for the Democratic nomination, but I've always rallied and given money and worked field for the eventual nominee. Obviously, I'll pull the lever whomever is the eventual nominee this year - McCain is simply a crazy person - but, for the first time, I just can't see putting in the work for Clinton this year.

I've always had serious qualms about her "50% + 1" view of politics and her cavalier attitude about authorizing an invasion of another country, but the last few weeks have just turned my stomach. The dishonest slime campaign she has waged against someone whom she knows will be a far better president than McCain is just too much. Couple that with the steady stream of invective from her campaign and her supporters aimed, not at Obama, but at his supporters and I just don't see myself climbing into the foxhole with them in November. I simply despise the people she surrounds herself with and can't imagine working with them.

If Democrats like her put one-tenth of the energy she has put into destroying Obama into stopping Bush, we wouldn't be in this mess

We have a winner. Of course this is clearly all about you so it doesn't count.

Can the people who complain about vitriol by the "Obamaniacs" please develop some self-awareness?

More crap from atrios - the leader of the little circle of links - are you both idiots or do you just need a link today.

Are you denying that the campaign has gotten negative, at least on the part of clinton?

I expect more from this site than mindly parroting the foolishness of a 24/7 snark board that is usually wrong and consists of hundreds of immature insults.

Is this the best you can do - repeat the moronic analysis of atrios? Please give us a break - blaming the negative atmosphere of this campaign on the supporters of each side is just too much BS - even by atrios' low, low standards.

optical weenie: I'm an amoral sociopath. Talk like that is sure going to convince me of the superiority of your candidate choice?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of any opposing candidate (there's really not enough difference in two candidates on the issues to get exercised about either way). Rather it has everything to do with supporting Hillary Clinton despite her amoral and unscrupulous behavior and the harm it is causing to the Democratic party and the chances of putting a Democrat in the White House. If you're okay with the Clinton campaign's Rove-light smear tactics then what distinguishes you from a Bush supporter isn't principles but merely a matter of degree.

It's not about you. It's about the Americans who will die in the wars John McCain wants to launch. If you can't overcome personal pique to vote for his Democratic opponent, whoever that is, you are deeply self-centered.

If John McCain wins then we will do the best we can to stop him from launching wars that kill thousands of Americans. I have never been moved by people who try to argue the sky will fall if x happens. No one knows what will happen. Maybe a McCain Presidency will lead to a Democratic President being elected in 2012, the likes of FDR. Your chicken little ravings about McCain sound panicky and short sighted. There are very few absolutes in the world. Don't be afraid to do what you think is right.

Look, if Clinton wins legitimately, I would probably end up voting for her despite all my complaints. But it's hard to see that happening.

If she wins by rigging it with super delegates, then she's unfit to lead. Nobody who would defy the a Democratic election can ever be trusted to lead a Democracy. That's more important than the Supreme Court. That's more important than anything else.

Good Lord, what a depressing series of responses here. I am prepared to agree with you, Kevin, that too much is made of prenomination feuds, although your 1968 analogy did more to wound your case than bolster it.
Now ... Jesus, people. Sure, there are differences between HRC and BHO. But both are ardent health care reformers, both have at least promised to get the troops home ASAP, and either would save the Supreme Court from tilting so far right it slides into the Atlantic. So suck it up, comrades. If every one of us doesn't show up, we're getting four more years, maybe more, of Katrinas, Gitmos, warmongering and diplomatic-economic erosion.
Now I prefer Obama. For that matter, I prefer Nader. But if Hillary is our best shot at at least slowing the world's drift toward disaster, generations to come will not forgive us for taking it.

So suck it up, comrades. If every one of us doesn't show up, we're getting four more years, maybe more, of Katrinas, Gitmos, warmongering and diplomatic-economic erosion.

In the end, you're almost certainly correct. It just seems sad that after letting the republicans ruin the country, the democratic party is really not looking to do more than throw a band-aid on the problem. You would think we could set our sights a little higher this time.

It's not about you. It's about the Americans who will die in the wars John McCain wants to launch.

There is ample circumstantial evidence that just as many Americans will die in the wars Hillary Clinton wants to launch.

latts: yes, there are many very good, principled boomers...

Nice of you to say so. And some of my best friends are X'ers.

It's not an either/or proposition. To say "I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee" is not the same as "dismissing a whole generation out of hand." It just means "Hillary isn't my first choice but better her than John 'Hundred Years of War' McCain."

Hillary should be the chosen one. For example among others she has a lot of experience...
Flipper

kevin, I don't think I've ever thanked you for a post, but now's the time. Amen.

15 years of Clinton-bashing has had it's toll....

It’s a free country. Do what you like with your choice at the top of the ticket, but *PLEASE* DO NOT “sit out� the election. Go to the polls and make sure that you use your vote to put deserving Democrats into congressional, state and local office. The only truly idiotic thing would be to stay away from the polls altogether.

We pay entirely too much attention to the presidential race, and forget how much public business gets carried out in congress, and at the state and local level. What would really hurt the party would be to deny all of the candidates at these levels the votes they need to carry their elections. They need you.

If it will really make you feel better, you can symbolically “sit out� the presidential election by leaving that part of the ticket blank, or write in a protest vote (In my first presidential election in 1972, I wrote in Shirley Chisholm). Personally, I will enthusiastically support whoever wins the primary, because Bush has taught me that presidents are important (doh!).

I.R.A.Q.

If we're ever to have a sane foreign policy again this election absolutely has to be a repudiation of GWB's insanity. Hillary Clinton was and probably still is a supporter of the war and most of her foreign policy advisors are neocons. Electing her would practically be an endorsement of GWB's presidency. For me this is 4 orders of magnitude more important than what they think about mandates for health insurance.

To say "I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee" is not the same as "dismissing a whole generation out of hand."

Luckily, I don't have to worry about my GE vote-- McCain already has my state. But pissing on the youth, as several people detailed above, *will* haunt Dems in the future, because brand loyalty needs to be formed right now, not after they've been shown who's boss and have decided to take a pass. In the marketplace of ideas, they're eager to buy if offered a good product, but they're free to walk away from the transaction. So we're offering the same product they're desperate to replace... really smart.

"Can the people who complain about vitriol by the 'Obamaniacs' please develop some self-awareness?
Posted by: The Other Ed on March 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM "

Not likely. I've actually had Clinton supporters suggest that Taylor Marsh runs something other than a SmearObama24/7 operation and that Sean Wilentz wrote an insightful analysis of the Obama campaign at TNR. I'm loathe to use the term - since Paul Krugman launched it at us and I find it repugnant - but methinks there's no "personality cult" among Democrats quite as grotesque and beyond reason like the Clinton cult. Given all of the damage that the Clintons have done to the party - from their DLC roots, to "The era of big government is over" GOP-lite governance, to destroying any hope of health care reform for a decade and a half, to Hillary's absolute abdication of leadership when Bush proposed to invade Iraq, to her current legitimatizing of McCain talking points to stay in this race - it's like a battered wife syndrome. Maybe Hillary and Bill are the perfect symbol of folks who are joined at the hip despite past humiliations. I don't understand these folks - in life or in politics - but I know it exists.

I'm preparing myself for President John McCain - not the first time Hillary helped guarantee a GOP victory after a demonstration of hubris (1994) or that a Clinton proved too weak to fight as a Democrat and morphed into a pale imitation of a "Reagan Revolution" GOPer in order to assure personal survival. (Lest we forget in our "shock" at the depths of this Mark Penn-massaged campaign, recall that it was the Clintons who launched Dick Morris into the public purview. There seems to be something about Clintons and sleazebags that are made for each other. Now let's all learn to spell G-I-U-S-T-R-A, because it's about time that Bill gets some more of that spotlight he loves so much. All's fair at this point.)

As a former Edwards supporter who also liked Dodd, I find nothing compelling about either of these candidates. Neither has shown leadership; in their current jobs they both play it safe, haven't taken the lead in any important fight, have always been running for President from day one on Capitol Hill rather than doing the job they were elected to do.

Despite the fact that I doubt either will be a particularly memorable President, I'll gladly pull the lever for either one so that the next SCOTUS opening is filled by a Democrat and so McCain doesn't get to start his wars in Syria and Iran.

BTW, I get a real kick out of the lightweight, intergenerational argument put forward by some Obama supporters. The shorter version seems to be, "Those boomers are sooo self centered. Why don't they just DIE and get out of the way so WE can run everything!?!" Talk about your sense of entitlement...

This "young" boomer will turn 50 this year. I have no intention of dying and getting out of your way anytime soon. If you want to work TOGETHER on making this a better nation, I'm all for it. If you're telling me that your taking over and I should just be quiet, that ain't happening.

BTW, Sen. Obama is all of three years younger than me.

No one knows what will happen. Maybe a McCain Presidency will lead to a Democratic President being elected in 2012, the likes of FDR.

Unless you're in the military, it's other people's lives you're gambling with. But so long as you feel pure I guess that's the important thing.

And don't worry, even relatively hawkish Hillary won't launch wars -- the Republicans won't let her. Except for McCain they all became peaceniks under her husband, and would again under her.

The blood-letting in the continuing primaries may cause a few to sit out the elections, come November, but not many, I think. More importantly, the decision will be made based on how the candidates position themselves on policies in their debates with/campaign against McCain. Obama has drawn a lot of independents, who could easily switch over to McCain in November. Many progressives are actually hoping for change - as in a progressive agenda. If the Dem candidate (either one) moves center/center-right (a la Kerry) some number will sit at home or vote for Nader. For example, Obama's actual position on NAFTA is worth scrutiny. And I sure hope the whining faction of the Democrat supporters won't call that unfair.

Quote: "I'm reminded of the old saying that the smaller the stakes, the more vicious the battle. Obama and Clinton are obviously different in some important ways, but overall there just aren't any huge gaps between them, either in ideology or governing theory."

Heh? You've equated differences between the candidates with the STAKES involved? Why on earth would you do that?

The reason you only see a small difference between the two candidates is that you're only looking at the policies, not the people. There is a smaller real-world difference between McCain and Clinton than there is between Obama and Clinton in the kind of people they are. McCain is willing to stake out positions and flop around like a fish depending on the way the wind blows. Same for Hillary. Is there a person alive who doesn't see that her vote for the Iraq war was nothing other than a calculated move to "look tough?" Same with Kyl-Lieberman. Or what about her strong anti-flag burning stance? Or her hesitation in standing up for gay rights (she hasn't uttered a peep because it would be unpopular).

And lets talk lobbyists. Hillary rejoices in their participation and their donations. Same with McCain They both represent, from different policy points, all the things that have made people other than political bloggers hate politics. The smearing. The back-room deals. The dishonesty.

Obama is a very different kind of person. And a very different politician. The fact that he hasn't taken a dollar from lobbyists or PACs is evidence of radically different idea of how government should work. Hillary and McCain both see no other way for government to work. Can't you see the difference there?

Only a tiny fraction of Sen. Clinton's supporters and Sen. Obama's supporters comment on political blogs. At all.

Only a tiny fraction of the Democrats who sometimes comment on political blogs ever make snide comments about their non-favored candidates and their supporters. Unfortunately, that fraction of a fraction is extremely visible and provacative, and repeatedly posts flammage and incitement to riot; most of the rest of us are inclined to remark somewhere, once, "I have no problem with Candidate X, will vote for them in the general, but I prefer Candidate Y."

After that, the tolerant majority stays quiet, and likely becomes dismayed as their favorite political blog's comment section descends into a flame-fest. As Mark Isaak remarked, long ago on Usenet, "Tolerance on the Net consists mostly of posts that people don't make."

The trolls divide us; maybe some of them are doing it on purpose. Last night I looked in on the Left Coaster; some jerk was posting over and over, taunting the Clinton supporters. One guy, but many many sophomoric content-free comments. Made me want to comment with an apology on behalf of Obama supporters in general, and to ask him to STFU.

But all this blog comment flamewar is a tempest in a teapot as far as the general election is concerned. The vast majority of the electorate is blissfully unaware of its existence, and wouldn't care if they knew.

Sure, Clinton and Obama have taken some similar public positions. The problem is that I honestly don't believe that Clinton will pay any attention to what she said during her campaign if she manages to win the general election. The minute that one of her campaign planks drops below 50% support in the polls, she'll be triangulating away from it so fast it'll make your head spin.

Ergo, IMO, the differences between the two are much more significant than Kevin seems to think.

Quote: "They're both great candidates (as was John Edwards), and I confess that I have a hard time understanding the level of vitriol that the race has produced among supporters on both sides. I sure hope that all the doom and gloom talk is just talk, because anybody who's seriously thinking about sitting out this election if their guy doesn't win is being an idiot."

Does it come from being a parent? To me, there is just something appalling about the notion of rewarding that b!tch Hillary Clinton -- yes, I'm using the b-word now -- for behavior that I wouldn't reward in anyone else. Yes, I know it's cutting off my nose to spite my face to think about not voting if she's the nominee -- and I assume, ultimately, it won't come to that.

But at the moment, I'm quite appalled by her campaign crap and don't want to reward it.

You know, the whole, "I voted for Obama because I hate Hillary and I'll switch to McCain in the general" screed is tiresome and childish. It's "I'm gonna take my ball and go home."

In a word, blackmail.

STFU.

Oh, and I'm 51, and I have one vote, just like any twenty or thirty something. I'd prefer to think about what we could do together, what we WILL do together. There's a sea change coming, regardless of which Democrat is elected.

But we must must MUST purge the whole "victim" mentality. Whoever gets the nomination ain't going to have it handed to them on a silver platter, and thats a good thing. We need fighters. The right is not going to suddenly roll over and play dead.

Really, what we need are politicians who can be fighters AND lovers.

For me, Hillary represents the DLC and I reject their vision of the future. I will NOT vote republican, but I would reluctanty vote for Clinton. She will receive no money from me and no additional support.

Hillary crossed the line with me with her current attacks on Obama suggesting the Republican nominee is more qualified to be commander in chief.

My guess is that she will NOT get us out of Iraq, and would likely engage militarily with Iran. Hillary's current rhetoric is contrary to her votes in the Senate, and I suggest she will need to prove that a woman can sabre rattle on par with the boys.

My reluctant vote for Clinton would be based on one thing...Supreme Court and other judicial appointments.

Obama is a puffed-up phony. That is the problem.
In a few years, he would be good enough to be President. Now? He's just a marketing product.

Because the divisions between supporters of BO and HC match up with many other demographic divisions.

Therefore even if the candidates policies aren't terribly different, the factions represented by the candidates are very different.

After being enamored with Obama for almost a year, I fell out of love over a period of reading more profiles on the guy. At the same time, I realized my Hillary aversion was baseless.

I could care less if Clinton has worked for this her entire life, I think she's the better candidate because she seems way more seasoned. Note I did not say she has more years of experience.

Obama symbolizes, and expresses, many things that trouble me about the generation coming of age now - the attitude that elders are clueless and have nothing to contribute, wanting instant gratification, and a slight, smug narcissism. I see this deep-rooted resentment toward baby boomers, well grounded (the boomers drive me insane!) but Obama seems to be bringing on a second wave boomerism mirroring the one he decries.

Michelle Obama's comments, which she read from a scripted speech twice, that she hasn't been proud of her country in her adult life until now, WERE TROUBLING! More narcissism.

From afar people see Hillary as a narcissist, but the more I read about the two of these people, the more it looks like Hillary is just a tenacious person who doesn't bother managing her image, while Obama seems to believe he has a divine calling to be president. Ick.

A puffed-up phony? I can see why you're unwilling to sign your name to crap like that. The phony is Hillary, pretending that being a politician's wife counts for real experience.

You want another failed attempt at health care? Vote for Hillary.

You want another huge loss in Congress for the Dems? Vote for Hillary.

You want lobbyists to control the agenda? Vote for Hillary.

You want any of that to change? Vote for the puffed-up phony. And while you're at it, read his books. Read what being a community organizer in the Chicago slums really is about. And then compare that to Hillary's corporate law career. And them tell me who's being the phony when they say they want to change the lives of ordinary americans. Obama's been involved in that kind of puffed-up phoniness for decades. Hillary's a rich girl who's gotten richer. And who, for all her talk, has ZERO accomplishments. I dare you to name even one.

I get a real kick out of the lightweight, intergenerational argument put forward by some Obama supporters. The shorter version seems to be, "Those boomers are sooo self centered. Why don't they just DIE and get out of the way so WE can run everything!?!" Talk about your sense of entitlement...

Oh, damn, I guess you saw the kids towing in the ice floe for your final journey...

::sigh::

Look, a new generation is coming up whether you guys like it or not, and instead of welcoming them and understanding their concerns, I'm hearing a bunch of cranky, hidebound complaints from people who seem rather inflexible and, well, old. This new, huge generation is not impressed with the Dem boomer political models at least, because they're staggeringly ineffective (Reagan, Reagan, GHWB, a besieged Clinton, the right-leaning accomodationist Clinton, Gore's destruction, and GWB/Cheney-- you see a pattern of success there?- me neither). Insisting on a diligent and unappealing (not to mention self-serving) wonk because it's just not the kids' turn to have a say yet is both selfish and shortsighted, and if that doesn't make sense to boomers, well... it just confirms a lot of stereotypes.

Then again, building a party for the future would require a lot more foresight & self-discipline than Democrats of any generation are likely to display, so there's no point in being surprised.

>>Last year, I was still favorably disposed to Sen. Clinton, but I have really soured towards her over the last 2 months or so. I've seen more of her, and I don't like what I see. I actively dislike her now.

And I feel exactly the same way about Obama. I can't stand his preachery style. It's manipulative and condescending.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Oh wait. Here's an accomplishment: voting to authorize the Iraq war.

Oh wait, here's another: voting to ban flag-burning.

Oh wait, here's another: voting to get tough with Iran.

Oh wait, here's another: voting to make bankruptcy harder for ordinary americans (you know, the ones she want to help so badly) and making it easier for corporations.

Or wait, here's another: willfully and knowingly distorting Obama's position on choice to score political points.

Oh wait, here's another: praising the experience of the republican nominee over her rival's to score political points.

Yeah, there's a whole lot to respect about Hillary.

How this could possibly have taken Kevin by surprise, I don't know.

But he's just admitted that when it comes to the fundamental fissures and rifts appearing in the democratic primary--he doesn't know what he's talking about!

It will only get worse the longer the primary goes on.

James Brown!

Great stuff. Thanks. I needed that.

Pity poor Obama if he wins. There's no way he can satisfy the moralistic ideologues who support him now, and when people like that are disillusioned, they turn vicious.

Mario, I'm confused when you lump millions and millions of people under the heading of "moralistic idealogues. What do you mean by that? Do you mean like the people who founded our country? Or do you mean like the immigrants who came searching for a better life? Or do you mean like the kind of person who wants to get into politics to actually help people, like Obama, or the ones
who see it as a way to ride the coattails of power, like Hillary?

Oh wait, I don't think "false hopes" Hillary would really qualify as an idealist. No I think "uninspiring, e