You forgot Ferraro's "he's only where he is in this race because he's black." Sorry to get hysterical.

What about that Geraldine Ferarro gem?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-backer.html

Uh, isn't Krugman like the #2 example of how far-out the Obama Bashers/Hillary Lovers have gotten(Taylor Marsh being #1)? Is he really the person to pass judgment on people being unfair to the Hilldog?

Mike

Welcome to the Angry Left, Kevin. These people voted for Nader in 2000. Their older brothers and sisters have been showing up at WTO conferences for years peddling their New Age Anarchy. That's the problem with popular political movements: Some of your fellow travelers are likely to be a$$holes.

I think that if you go back and reexamine the supposedly racially-tinged remarks in context, you'll see that there was very little there - esp. compared to the ought-to-be equally repugnant pushing of that narrative by the other side. And if you don't read TheLeftCoaster or TalkLeft you may not be aware that there is a good case for arguing the Obama campaign has been just as hardnosed as the Clinton campaign - they just had the media and most of the liberal sphere nodding instead of jeering.

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

Have you considered that the root cause may be the suspicions and distaste at the below the belt tactics of the Clinton campaign, now backed into a corner? For example I happened to watch 60 Minutes, and found Clinton's response, ending in the qualifier, 'as far as I know' cheap but representative of her subtle tactic of sowing doubt. The whole exchange was less about the words said, than the tone, and body language that she telegraphed. That opens the door for doubt about darkening an image/subtly raising racist fears of a black man lurking (appealing to our lizard brain)as being in keeping with past subtle actions. For one, I have been so totally put off by the deviousness (just below the radar) of both Clintons in this campaign, that I will not be able to vote for her should she be the nominee. It would just be more Rovian/Dick Morris politics.

Thanks Kevin - I totally agree.

Kevin, I'm not going to bash Hillary today. But yes, I agree with you she should withdraw gracefully. She's already lost. Just do the math. Does she want to take the Democratic Party down with her also? It certainly appears so. This is what egomania does to you and what it is doing to Hillary. The perfidy of the Clintons (which progressive journalist Matt Drudge exposed so eloquently) is infinite. If she would only quit now she would still have a shred of decency left, but for the Clintons they are never willing to put the good of others before themselves.

The online whining about Hillary being treated unfairly is driving me crazy.

This is a cycle:
1) Hillary attacks.
2) Push-back on her over-the-top, ridiculous attacks.
3) "Hillary is being treated unfairly! The media hates her! Whaaaaaa!"
Rinse and repeat.

Please, Phyl. I agree that the Clinton campaign has gotten ugly. I voted for Obama myself.

But please, please, please. If it comes down to Clinton vs. McCain, there is still an important difference. If someone runs and ugly campaign, but doesn't promise another 100 years in Iraq, they are still worth voting for.

For the life of me I cannot see why the Obama fans are calling for Hillary to get out. She is not that far behind, there are some important state primaries coming up where she has a good chance of winning, and there are still several months of press vetting that Obama has to go through.

Kevin, if Obama were in her position, would you be calling for him to drop out? I don't think so.

There seems to be so much mathematical manipulating being done over delegate/popular vote count by the Obama side, and the pre-emptive calling of super delegates to vote for him, and the dissing of Florida going for a re-vote (where Hill has the advantage), and the threatening that Obama voters will not vote this fall unless he is going for President, it seems to me that "the camp doth protest too much".

Let all the people vote.

Nope. Sorry, in my opinion it's not over until she withdraws. I'm through giving her the benefit of the doubt, and regretting it later once she tries another tactic. Not this time, at this point in history. Until then, it's nonstop and full-force until she is flooded off. And yes, I am mindful of the Republicans.

Agree with most of your post (save South Carolina (they were dancing dangerously close with some of their comments there)). But I'd like your take on Ferraro's comments (which is where I thought you were going when you listed the litany of claims). I'm not sure what the objective interpretation of those comments are (just my own personal interpretation), but they seem (at least to me) inappropriate on a multiple-levels.

I could go on and on about this one.....it isn't that she has been racist it is that she is an insane nacissist who feels she is owed the nomination and represents, to many in the Democratic Party, the type of politics that we would like to see stopped. And since she is trying to place Obama as not even as qualified as McCain, many Democrats again, see that she has not the best interest of the party at hand but only the best interests of herself.

I think there has been an awakening on the left about just how much the Clinton's are an antity to themselves. For me the audacity of suggesting a split ticket when the only way she wins the nomination is if the party elders support their member of the club, was the last straw. She just needs to go away. And why hasn't the press called her on that. "excuse me Mrs. Clinto but with less states won, less popular vote, less delegates and limited prospects out side of Penn, are you suggesting Mr. Obama should consider you as VP"?

And please Kevin, don't quote Krugman on this one. His fever swamp crusade against Obama has been going on for months...

You are making me ill with all this talk about "poor Obama" and the hardnosed talk that other politicos are saying. His whinning about all this is crap and he is a total wus if he can not just brush it off. The media has been FAR more hard on HRC than any other candidate out there. They have been extrememly sexist and out right rude but she take it all - like a man!!!

I say that Obama is the one that should get out.

Why do Obama supporters hate democracy so much?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I agree - let the people vote, let the process unfold. It's too close to call for anyone to leave this race yet, people.

This dovetails nicely with Kevin's other post on how many people read blogs. The only reason the blogosphere has lost its mind is that there are more and more of the Great Unwashed. But then, having a more participatory democracy sometimes means having to be embarrassed by your compatriots.

Optical Weenie: If Obama had lost 12 of 15 contests, you better believe there would be a loud and collective demand that he bow out of the race.

Fallon just resigned. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran on the horizon. Now who do you think is better running against McCain in November during wartime?

Hillary says the Republican nominee is a better candidate for president than the Dem front runner. In a normal party, people like that are driven out. But she'll continue to be a big dem celebrity, win or lose, so you and krugman can chill.

Let all the people vote.
Posted by: optical weenie

there you go again.

Alot of people are on edge because Barack Obama is vulnerable to subtle racist attacks which have often been used against African-American candidates in the past. Combine that with the Clinton campaign's attempts to win at any cost (swinging pledged delegates now?) and you have a toxic brew. I still suspect there is a certain amount of nutpicking involved in highlighting this, though, as people who were calm to begin with or mellowed after further review are not going to get alot of attention.

Geraldine Ferraro's comments, it appears, get a pass. So, comments by surrogate and former Democratic VP candidate on the one hand, versus random bloggers and Orlando Patterson (who knew he was still alive?), none of whom, AFAIK, are associated with the Obama campaign, on the other. Pay no attention to the first, folks; it's the latter that should concern us.

Jeebus. Given that you appear to prefer, however mildly, Obama, I cannot figure for the life of me what you're going in the tank for, here.

She's ripping off her own supporters to boot.

http://tinyurl.com/2axe2r

Kathy Callahan:
"I happily donated $2,000. They had my VISA card on file. Unauthorized donations were made.

In addition, I was actually double charged for an event that I did attend.

Smoking gun: $5,800 is $1,200 over the legal limit.

I would say this in a court of law. I am an honest person...the following statement is true down to the letter:

Matt McQuenney who works in the compliance department at HRC headquarters told me verbatim -"What happened to you with credit card errors is happening to others,. You are not alone. Kathy, I'm trying hard to find out where and who it's coming from. What's going on!""

Read the whole thing at the link. It's despicable. I wonder how many she's screwing like this who are too embarrassed to come forward? McCain isn't the only one breaking campaign finance law. This has got to stop.

Kevin, if Obama were in her position, would you be calling for him to drop out? I

If Hillary had won 14 of the last 17 states, had the lead in popular vote and an insurmountable lead in delegates, the media would have written Obama's obituary long ago.

Kevin, the thought that this campaign could get us closer to moving past race has now been demolished. You don't have to put a lot of a particularly toxic substance into the well to poison it for a long time. The Ferraro comments are additive -- and are now starting to make it look like Hillary's "surrogates" wiht her tacit approval (and certainly, lack of strong disapproval) are making explicit appeals to whites to vote based on racial resentment.

If these tactics are successful I think I am not alone in saying that I will be too depressed to write a check or campaign like I did last time around, and I'm not young or African American.

legion of bloggers started locking onto the ridiculous meme that talk of Obama as Hillary's VP was like asking him to "ride in the back of the bus."

Bloggers locking on to a ridiculous meme? Surely you jest?

Seriously, the VP offer was an unqualified insult given his front runner status, but it certainly wasn't intentionally racist. I suppose one could argue that since it was an implied reference to Obama's relative youth and inexperience, that some black "men" might take it to imply that Obama was a "boy." However, at what point does the burden of racism fall on the person making the inference and not the person accused of the implication? Normal English conversation is so rife with potential symbolism that virtually any statement can be interpreted to be racist, sexist, agist or some other "ist" by a zealous and creative deconstructionist.

It is getting ridiculous. It also doesn't help Obama, even though I fully realize that the majority of these silly ideas do not originate from within his campaign. Unfortunately, he can't really ask for it to stop, because that would draw even more unwelcome attention to the ridiculousness of some of the charges.

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

Maybe so, maybe not. I think Obama is currently ahead. Clinton should stay in as long as she can afford it. This is a free country after all. I don't think she'll survive to the convention unless Pennsylvania is a HUGE blowout.

kevin: "Hell, even I fell for this a couple of weeks ago, getting suckered into passing along a Drudge slander about Hillary's campaign supposedly circulating a photo of Obama in "Muslim" garb."

Well, guess who's continuing to circulate that particular falsehood in Mississippi? Why, none other than Sen. Obama himself:

"When in the midst of a campaign you decide to throw the kitchen sink at your opponent because you’re behind and your campaign starts leaking photographs of me when I’m traveling overseas wearing the native clothes of those folks to make people afraid, and then you run an ad talking about who’s going to answer the phone at three in the morning, an ad straight out of the Republican playbook, that’s not real change." -- Barack Obama, Jackson, MS (March 10, 2008)

(Emphasis added.)

I would further offer that embarking on a fishing expedition for even the minutest signs of racism within the context of any white candidate's political campaign and personal life -- which has become an absurd obsession for a small but vocal handful of Obama supporters -- is in itself a racist act that is both intellectually fraudulent and emotionally violent.

Amen Kevin.

And it isn't just the nuts online. Yesterday on Hardball Howard Fineman was explaining how the Spitzer mess is all Hillary's fault as well. According to Fineman, because Hillary isn't doing well in the election and will continue to be a senator from NY, Eliot Spitzer felt "blocked in" with no where to go and thus forced to cheat on his wife. I freakin' kid you not.

You wrote this post without mentioning the comments by Geraldine Ferraro. Do you expect it to be taken seriously?

I don't think the Clintons are racist myself. I do believe they have demonstrated they are willing to throw race out there in hopes it will reduce votes for Obama.

No, it doesn't prove the Clintons are racists when they use Obama's blackness to wedge off voters, but it certainly does give strong clues about the lengths they'll travel to win this primary.

Wheat from chaff is the issue, I think. I agree with all your examples, which were pretty strained, but the Ferraro brouhaha does raise some real questions. Ferraro's comments as at least implicitly racist, I would say, & she is both on the Clinton campaign's leadership & finance committees. Now maybe the whole denounce/reject debate & calls for resignations by loose-lipped campaign aides & surrogates is silly to start with, but having played that game (part of the now-famous Kitchen Sink Strategy), I don't think the Clinton campaign should be allowed to leave their response to Ferraro at Wolfson's "disagree[ment]" with what she said. If Power's comments required she be canned, whatever kernels of truth they contained, the Clinton campaign has to react much more forcefully than that.

You've listed the complaints about Hillary's tactics, but you only refuted some of them.

I'll grant that the face-darkening episode turned out to be false (although given the evidence, it's hard to blame people for being suspicious). And the Orlando Patterson letter was surprisingly content-free from such a serious scholar.

But the South Carolina stuff happened. The Robert Johnson stuff happened (I don't blame them for his statements; I do blame them for not condemning them). The Drudge thing happened (the Clinton campaign never denied it; they just said that it's not divisive to show Obama in the clothing of his "native country"--yes, a top Ohio surrogate really said that on CNN).

There have been endless debates on the "as far as I know" flap. It is possible for somebody to say what she said without wanting to imply anything, but it is exceedingly unlikely that a politician as word-conscious as senator Clinton would have done so in a major interview.

I think the truth is fairly obvious: some of reputed race-baiting has been debunked, but most has not, and there is a troubling pattern here.

Occam's Razor.

Thanks, Kevin. This whole thing is really depressing. I can handle being depressed by the Clinton campaign's poor job, because hey, there's somebody else in the party I want to vote for. But I can no longer stand to listen to Hillary's online enemies--not the media, but the commenters on blogs that I used to like--make nasty, overblown charges.

That's not the kind of stuff that makes Hillary supporters change their minds; in fact, it often does the opposite, suggesting to them that Obama supporters are mean-spirited and simplistic. As an Obama supporter myself, I know not all of us are knee-jerk reactionaries who can't stomach the thought that Hillary Clinton might actually care about people and public service, albeit in a way that we don't always agree with.

Kevin, you are the definition of a "concern troll".

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

Tallying the "popular vote" across a mix of primaries and caucuses is sort of a fool's errand to begin with - how many Iowans do you include in your popular vote totals? - but the numbers I've seen say that Clinton has little chance of winning by that metric either. Even if you include Michigan and Florida. Clinton has only won a single state by 20 points or more (Arkansas), while Obama has won over a dozen blowouts.

In fact, by any metric other than "let's only count primary voters in big blue states not named Illinois or Wisconsin", Hillary has already been eliminated; the only reason she's still in the race is that she can raise $30 million even while running on fumes.

As far as the ad with the darkened Obama, I think the issue is far from closed.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/249
My only problem with Hillary is that 20 years of Bush/Clinton is enough, isn't it time for some fresh ideas?

But the main focus needs to be on defeating McBush in Nov., no matter who the nominee is. Let's not lose sight of the real goal.

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

[/putting on my white, clinical lab coat and donning my mathematician's glasses]

WHAT???? How the hell do you figure she's going to do THAT???

I'd love to see the math on that. At present, he leads her by over 600,000 votes. Any lead in the popular vote she *might* receive in PA will be completely eclipsed by all the other states left (in which he beats her by double digits - see Mississippi, for example).

Angry Obama supporters are just trying to close the deal before Howard Dean comes up with a solution to Michigan and Florida. The fact that Hillary stays on the offensive just makes Obama's supporters angrier. And for many of them, the fact that she's a tough, shrewd woman makes them angrier still.

Obama probably wouldn't be ahead were it not for the punishment meted out to Florida and Michigan voters. I say find a way to choose and seat the Florida and Michigan delegates and let all the voters decide.

Hmmm....I'm an Obama supporter and while I did read about the various accusations of race-bating mentioned, I pretty much dismissed them out of hand.

In this campaign, Hillary has given people PLENTY of reasons to be angry though:

-Her desire to change the rules after the fact in order to seat the MI and FL delegates.

-Her refusal to agree to a re-do of FL, and silence on the prospect of re-doing MI.

-Her hoping that superdelegates will swing the election her way, overriding the will of the people if need be.

-Her campaign's defense of the "Obama in African garb" photo....not race-bating, but definitely Muslim-bating, why defend it if you had nothing to do with it?

-Her arrogance and condescending attitude in suggesting she'd pick Obama for VP....you're behind on all counts Hill.

-Her campaign's dismissal of all states Obama has won as unimportant.

-Her floating the idea that she might go after Obama's pledged delegates

-Her absolutely ridiculous claim that she and McCain are Commander-in-chief ready, while Obama is not.

-Her claiming her time as First Lady counts as pertinent experience for being Commander-in-chief....she's basically saying she was co-President (actually this is just annoying)

-Her playing the victim card ALL THE FUCKING TIME....Yes Hillary, nothing you do brings this scorn on you...

There's a lot more but you get the idea. So, there's plenty of reasons not to like Hillary but racism isn't one of them.

"The online whining about Hillary being treated unfairly is driving me crazy."

This is the flipside of being a female candidate. She can play the victim in a way that would be unseemly for a man.

Mike

In reality, the darkening thing, is an open question.

Why haven't you updated that post, since there was a fact check of Factcheck?

Even if you thought the "factcheck of factcheck" was wrong, it would have been worthwhile to LINK to it, and then say why it was wrong. Instead, you STOP at the factcheck.org piece.

I wonder why.

Can we please bring some sanity back to the blogosphere?

Since when has there been sanity in the blogosphere. I, a blogger myself, have found very interesting debates on the blogs and important information, but there is almost always some idiot who makes a ridiculous statement.

Barbara: "The Ferraro comments are additive ..."

No, they were way over-the-top. Geraldine Ferraro should apologize for offering that tripe.

To state categorically as she did that Sen. Obama is lucky to not be white, and thus imply that he's getting a free pass because he's an African-American male, is patently absurd on its face. It's not unlike those rancid arguments the right-wing continues to offer against affirmative action programs.

Sorry, Kevin, but you're just wrong on this one. The blogosphere is freaking out on this because Hillary appears determined to deeply wound Obama for the general election. All the points you make show how subtly they're accomplishing this. I didn't think the "as far as I know" Muslim comment was anything until I read that she and Obama had been at Christian prayer breakfasts together. You say hardnosed, I say civil war. Sorry, but she's running a dirty campaign considering she has almost no chance of winning. Hysteria well deserved.

To Kevin's list, I add the number of people who saw SNL's parody of Hillary's 3AM ad -- framed by a sequence in which "Hillary" admits that she is a liar, a loser, a cheater, and the Republicans' preferred candidate -- as a viciously anti-Obama attack.

Which is not to say that the anti-Hillary list is wrong; I'm just talking about people who, to my eye, are taking a sketch 100% wrong.

Kevin has also forgotten about Hillary's comment that Mahatma Gandhi "used to run a gas station in St. Louis" her continued insistence that Obama do cartwheels to disavow Louis Farrakhan, her mimicking of Obama's gospel style of delivery. Yes there is a pattern here and I expect it will continue.

"The fact that Hillary stays on the offensive just makes Obama's supporters angrier. And for many of them, the fact that she's a tough, shrewd woman makes them angrier still."

Tough? Okay. But shrewd? By what possible standard can Hillary Clinton be considered shrewd? Seriously, is there some definition of that word of which I'm unaware? She started her campaign for President 20 points ahead, with every possible advantage anyone could want and with Democratic voters not even willing to look at clearly more qualified candidates like Biden, Dodd or Richardson...yet she's being beaten by a guy who was an Illinois state legislator just a while ago. When has Hillary ever demonstrated any aptitude for shrewdness?

Mike

Ferraro's remarks were possibly a Kinsley, but they were certainly correct. If Obama wasn't black, he probably wouldn't have been taken seriously as a candidate. From a sheer voting perspective, he wouldn't have won any primaries but Connecticut, Vermont, and Illinois.

He's winning black voters because he's black. He's winning a good chunk of white liberals because they are "caught up" in the fabulous idea of having a black president. Other than that, he doesn't have much.

And even if Hillary wasn't winning the popular vote, she should stay in the race. She's very close, and she's got the better electability argument. The rules don't give the nomination to the person who has more votes or more pledged delegates, but to the person who gets more than half off all delegates. Clinton's got a better case than Obama, and every right to stay in.

Ethan: "The Drudge thing happened (the Clinton campaign never denied it ...)"

That's bullshit.

Yes and no. Obviously people can take things too far, myself included, and that's certainly fair game for criticism. But I think you're lumping too many things together and without sufficient context.

Hillary's campaign DID open the Pandora's box of racism. The fact that they backed off of this negative tactic because it started to hurt them hardly excuses the behavior or exonerates them.

Fair or not our society is pretty consistent in applying the racist label to people based on fairly low thresholds. The 'racist' label is an indelible mark, not a meter - it doesn't go away just because you stopped saying racist things for the moment. This isn't 'Obama supporters' being unfair, that's just the way our PC culture operates for better or worse (often worse).

The blowback Hillary is getting is largely a result of her playing with fire. People working for her campaign have been caught sending out emails accusing Obama of being a Muslim (and resigned), her supporters circulate them (I've gotten several), and she obviously benefits from them. It's the old school 'narrowcasting' - you let your surrogates slime your opponent for you while you pretend to be above the board.

So when Clinton says Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as I know", it's not hard for people to wonder whether she isn't deliberately adding a tiny bit of doubt for her followers. Whether that was her intent is besides the point - Hillary herself made that kind of attack fair game. Remember: in the last debate Hillary herself accused Obama to his face of doing the same thing with regard to Farrakhan's endorsement. 'Reject' wasn't enough for her, so how can she reasonably expect us not to hold her to her own standards?

So let's please not accuse Obama's fans of being unfair for raising questions of intent when Hillary herself did the exact same thing to Obama.

The speculation about whether Hillary's campaign darkened the images of Obama is a little out there, but not especially surprising given the circumstances of her negative campaigning. If they're being objective they should arrive at the conclusion that Hillary's campaign did not. Next?

Now, I can understand why you included a blogger's analogy to D. W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation' because it fits neatly under your thesis. That guy's analogy is patently, laughably absurd as you yourself note.

The problem is that when you lump something that crazy in with other examples, it has a way of trivializing, ridiculing and marginalizing even the more reasonable questions and criticisms of the way Hillary campaigns.

If we were to be as casual in characterizing this post of yours, it wouldn't be hard to lump it in with another one of the Hillary campaign's negative themes: that Obama's supporters are crazy. After all, your post isn't about how people on both sides are being crazy (and they are), but just Obama supporters:

The online feeding frenzy against Hillary Clinton is driving me crazy.

You really could/should have balanced this post out better.

Just because the accusations of racism may be going too far (and I'll agree), it doesn't mean that Hillary doesn't fully deserve to be called on and criticized for running a poisonous, slanderous, and ugly smear campaign against Barack Obama. When you put it in this broader context of her running a fairly negative campaign, combined with the fact that her campaign DID toy with the race card (until they started getting blockback), this current crop of racism accusations becomes a lot more understandable and not nearly as 'crazy' as you suggest.

Barbara: "The Ferraro comments are additive ..."

No, they were way over-the-top. Geraldine Ferraro should apologize for offering that tripe.

I forget where, but I did run across a comment earlier today suggesting that Ferraro's comments weren't so much racist as illustrative of the lack of misogyny Clinton has been facing.
To whit - were Obama a white guy - Clinton would have dropped out well before OH/TX because he'd already have the nomination sewn up.
YMMV

Hillary is tough and strong and will keep fighting. Obama folks are trying to get her out with anything - notice that they never talk issues just this trash talking politic crap. She will win this by staying tough and keeping onward - she will win the popular vote and deserve the delegate vote as well. Obama's camp should stop the simplistic whinning.

Re: The Photo coming from the Clinton campaign, I've just about had it with people on the left tossing around Drudge based charges!

Does anyone have any proof that Clinton's campaign "leaked" The Photo? Has Drudge produced any evidence? And what is wrong about Obama being photographed in the costume of Somali elders during a visit to Kenya?

Per Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest and Andrys, it was Freepers and their ilk who both downloaded and passed around The Photo. Only Drudge says the Clinton campaign had anything to do with outing the photos, and he was a bit careful in his wording. Well, Drudge and now Obama.

So, short of new proof of Clinton involvement, I think it is wrong to say Clinton or her campaign pushed The Photo. Wrong for Obama, wrong for left blogosphereans.

I am still adamantly a member of the reality-based community and do hope others in the left blogsphere are there still or will soon return.

It is so disappointing to see even our side of the blogosphere being bamboozled by Drudge! Why pass on his lies? Sheesh.

http://andrys1.blogspot.com/2008/02/source-of-obama-photo-from-kenya.html

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/02/todays_rightwin.htm

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/02/because_drudge.htm

From Seeing the Forest: People, you are being played like a violin.

I posted about this photo yesterday [2/24, 2nd link above] because several right-wing blogs were carrying it. Not one said anything about it coming from the Clinton campaign. Today the Drudge Report takes the opportunity to inject the photo to the mainstream and gets a twofer bonus, getting all the Obama supporters to blame the Clinton campaign.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the right wants us divided? Why is it so hard to see that they are working to set us against each other? Come on, people, Hillary Clinton is not your enemy, she is on our side.

These two bloggers are not A-List Big Bloggers, but they did the digging, they have the best record we have so far of where The Photo came from.

Please pass these links on so others can see the reality.

The angry responses should stop, because a reasoned, measured response is sure to get through to the Clintons and Mark Penn that their attack campaigning is alienating the party base?

Maybe fever swamp is what's called for here, is what I'm getting at..

You're a temperate soul, Kevin, and I think just as an esthetic matter, emo online behavior affronts you. That's fine. But this feeding frenzy you describe is mostly on Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff.

There are partisans in the water, and what does Clinton do but toss chum to them. Chum and insinuations of chum.

And then she pivots to delusional claims she brokered peace in North Ireland.

There's bound to be a frenzy with campaign behavior like that. For my part, I'm most concerned over her delusional claims to experience, her patronizing manner with a superior rival for the nomination, and the other affronts mentioned above. Far worse, imo, than the online excesses of political junkies.

"the current attempts to tar Hillary as a racist have gone way, way over the top"

You guys do this crap to Republicans all the time. It's only "over the top" when it gets done to a Democrat.

The only question in my mind is:

Does Hillary herself come up with this shit? Or does her campaign come up with it and she's too stupid to know better.

Either way, she's not threshhold material, any more than is her friend, John McBomb-Bomb-Iran.

and deserve the delegate vote as well.

Classic. Hillary will "deserve" the delegate vote -- as opposed to winning it, I suppose? Remember, Hillary can't fail, she can only be failed.

Re: Patterson's article - the comparison to "Birth of a Nation" is pretty far-fetched - but the advertisement wasn't particularly nice. Clearly what had happened in the world involved bad actions by brown people of the islamic faith, and the american dream family was white. Clearly all this is mild compared to what the republicans could do if Obama gets the nomination, but that doesn't extenuate the Clinton campaign.

Hear, hear, Kevin. Six weeks ago either seemed like a wonderful choice. We had an embarrassment of riches, compared to the whackjobs the other side had to choose from.

Everyone should just calm down. Getting hyper-partisan about your candidate is in part a buying-into of the media's earnest desire to make the process more urgent and dramatic than it really is.

Could it be that computer users are more likely to be Libertarian than Progressive? So, when a corporate Progressive challenges someone with a grassroots, community-organizing background -- maybe computer users would prefer the more libertarian candidate.

Concern-trolling indeed.

Why Clinton should withdraw when there's a good chance she'll come out ahead in the popular vote is beyond me.

Hillary is behind by almost 800,000 votes; there is little to no chance that she will garner the majority of votes, or even come close.

"In fact, by any metric other than "let's only count primary voters in big blue states not named Illinois or Wisconsin", Hillary has already been eliminated; the only reason she's still in the race is that she can raise $30 million even while running on fumes."

This argument would be easier to accept if there were some sign that *Obama* believed it. If it really is over, for example, then why no movement on a re-vote for Michigan or Florida- in fact why not the magnanimous gesture of seating them as is just to get the issue off the table? I mean, if it really is all over, what's the downside?

Another example - if he really thinks it's over he should be traiing all of his fire on McCain now and ignoring the irrelevant Hillary. But he's not. Why?

Because he knows this thing is NOT over by any meaningful metric.

The popular vote (minus Michigan) is at 48%-47% and even the pledged delegates are only 52%-47%. Her path isn't easy but this thing is far from over by the only metric that SHOULD matter - that being that Democrats in the United States are pretty much split right down the middle.

BTW,I'm leaning towards Obama myself. But still got awhile to decide here in NC.

Let the process continue until completion.

I doubt Ms. Clinton will come out ahead but it is possible so there is a need for all "cards" to be played before the "hand" is over.

I`m still hoping my favorite candidate, None of the Above, gets into the race at the last minute.

McBush & Friends must go irrespective.

"...the art of life is more like navigation than warfare..." - Alan Watts

I've found it very amusing that the same people who call for this stuff to end keep posting about it and linking to it. If you want it to disappear, don't keep bringing it up. It's like complaining that there's too much hype about a band by writing a post about the hype surrounding a band. Guess what? If you don't contribute to the frenzy, there's at least one less post.

Ferraro's comments are silly at the very least. They claim that he's getting a pass because he's a black man. It's trivial whining at best, when she should be talking about substantive issues.

But also, it can coincide disastrously with another concept: reverse discrimination. The notion that Barack is essentially being given the press and electoral equivalent of affirmative action. That's just foul. Barack Obama has done the work necessary to win, and never used his race as a bludgeon against his opponents, or racial identity politics as his strategy.

He's a great candidate who just happens to be black, and Ferraro's comments are just deeply disrespectful of that.

Conservatives have been long used to be called "racist" and "anti-women" by liberals so it's like water running off a duck's back when used against us.

But it is delightful to watch such terms being used against Democrats primary voters, who as we all know, are the most virtuous form of life on the planet. Hillary supporter Governor Rendell has essentially called a sizable portion of the Democratic voters in Pennsylvania racists who will not vote for a black man should Obama get the nomination.

With no significant policy differences between them to argue about, the supporters of the two candidates are going to destroy each other up in the 5-6 weeks before Pennsylvania votes with increasingly shrill personal attacks. Because neither Hillary or Obama will concede the race, nor should they since the nomination will not be determined until the convention and the voting of the Superdelegates.

Can't wait for Obama to press Hillary on whether Spitzer's use of prostitutes disqualifies him to remain Governor because it’s a no-win situation for Hillary. She can't say yes, given her standing by Bubba while using Monica as a cigar humidor. And if she says no, then he can mock her by saying why doesn't she ask Eliot to serve as her Vice President and really make it a return to the Clinton Era. (Or would that make Obama "anti-women" for picking on Hillary)

While I agree that the Hillary-bashing is over the top (even DailyKos has juumped on the bandwagon), she is going to have a real problem if Obama wins the nomination. It would be one thing if she merely questioned Obama's experience, but her praise of McCain will make it very difficult for her to switch course and endorse Obama. Even if she winss the nomination, her criticisms of McCain will be compromised by her praise of him.

I'm afraid she's painted herself in a corner, and handled that whole situation very poorly. That alone brings into question her qualifications for office.

Blackness is not relevant to this race. So just shut up about his being a black dude.

rofl

Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

I thought Hillary was a fighter, LBJ and Harry Truman rolled into one, the only candidate to single-handedly beat back the Republican attack machine. But now someone writes a critical diary on DailyKos or an op-ed in The New York Times and suddenly a Kevin Drum, a nearly 50-year old man, is crying like a 3-year old over spilled milk.

Grow a set.

My 2 cents: Kevin is mostly right. I also prefer Obama, but, yes, I have to agree that the accusation that Clinton is a racist is ridiculous. The drenched up "evidence" is painfully absurd. That's especially true of the totally insane Orlando Patterson op-ed -- read it if you haven't; I half expected him to mention that one of the kids in the ad is wearing pajamas that say "goodnight," and the "nig" appears prominently, so ergo, Clinton's a crypto-racist! This is really loony -- Althouse-loony -- territory, and I can't believe this guy is a sociology professor at a supposedly top university.

That said, however, there are a couple of points that are not as clear cut, like the whole 60 Minutes Moslem thing. I have a lot of respect for Eric Boehlert but my reaction watching 60 Minutes -- on its first run and without any preconceptions -- was one of shock. I looked at my equally disbelieving wife and we had to rewind and watch again because I thought I misunderstood. "I take him on the basis of what he says" and "As far as I know"? What sort of person would add these qualifiers, so that on one hand she's rejecting the rumors and on the other hand allows for the possibility of them being true? Clinton is obviously a smart, media-savvy person. We can simply decide her qualifiers were merely "unfortunate," but why did she utter them in the first place? Sure, the media manufactures a lot of bullshit and Obama supporters, as well as Clinton supporters, can be hysterical at times. But like her endorsement of McCain, Clinton should be held accountable for what she says.

As to Krugman, he's been almost as relentlessly anti-Obama as he's been anti-Bush (although admittedly subtler). He's often right, and I can agree with him that Clinton's healthcare plan is better than Obama's. But I can also see why many Obama liberals no longer trust him to be an objective observer of the primaries, and his attack on them as having lost their sanity will only alienate them further. It does sound too much like the typical thing a mainstream pundit usually says about those dirty bloggers and their readers.

In any case, I hope we keep some of this anger in reserve because the Republicans are coming with all their slime and mud and that's when we'll all need to push back as hard as we can.
____________________________________________

"He's winning black voters because he's black. He's winning a good chunk of white liberals because they are "caught up" in the fabulous idea of having a black president. Other than that, he doesn't have much."

Hey, Cal! What did you think of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Donovan McNabb not being that good and getting special treatment from the media for being a "black quaterback"?

Mike

Thanks, Kevin, for the call for her withdrawal. The last time you Obama guys did this, she whomped him 3 out of 4 states in one day. After she wins PA, I'm sure you'll call for her resignation again. And after she wins FL and MI AGAIN, I'm sure you'll write for her resignation again.

Pretty soon, Obama will have lost a lot of contests. Guess you wanted the NY Giants to give up and run out the clock in the Super Bowl, too? C'mon man!

Julene: "I've found it very amusing that the same people who call for this stuff to end keep posting about it and linking to it. If you want it to disappear, don't keep bringing it up."

You do have a valid point. However, ignoring it completely also offers its own unique set of political perils. As Sir Winston Churchill once observed, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

Hillary says McCain's ready to be Commander in Chief but Obama isn't.

If she'd just said it once, then apologized, I might cut her some slack. But she said it several times.

As far as I'm concerned, she's on her own. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Count one more agreeing with Kevin here. Most of the stuff tossed at Hillary by the Obama supporters is ridiculously overblown, tin foil hat type gibberish. Sure she is running a hard nosed campaign. well, politics ain't beanbag and she is running behind, so she has to attack. If Obama is a good candidate, then he will figure out how to beat the attacks. if he can't handle them, that will prove that he really isn't ready for the big show.
As far as I'm concerned, if there is a legitimate path to victory for Hillary, she has every right to take the fight all the way to the convention floor. There is nothing racist or narcissistic about that.appealing to super delegates and trying to seat Michigan and Florida are completely legal manuevers that she can take, and if Obama can't figure out how to win the game within the rules, then again maybe he is not ready.
And I say all this as an Obama supporter.

My distaste for Clinton has grown to serious loathing. But I mostly agree with you about the concerns about racism. I'm not going to say it's not there. But it's such a loaded charge, I'd want something a good bit more obvious before arguing about it.

That said her other tactics in this campaign have been completely outrageous. She *ought* to step aside gracefully now. She cannot close the pledged delegate gap in any significant way. The popular vote is a very flawed measure of anything -- because it greatly reduces the weight caucus states play in the process. If they had known ahead of time that popular vote was a measure that would matter for deciding who was going to be a nominee, they would likely have opted to hold primaries. And it's not even obvious at this juncture that she's going to win that.

IF she were conducting this campaign with dignity and respect, I'd have no objection to letting her ride out the string to the convention. But she's conducting herself in a way that is damaging to the party as a whole. That's too big a price to pay for her to continue to run a campaign that can only win by having the superdelegates override the will of the people as expressed by the only real measure of that (elected delegates) -- a situation that would guarantee a party torn apart.

I'm really surprised that the big named players in the party haven't tried to put a stop to this thing. Though Pelosi's comments today suggest that she, at least, has recognized the problem and is working hard behind the scenes to get Clinton to knock it off. (Her having to say something in public suggests that Clinton's not exactly listening, though.) This race is almost surreal. The Democrats should have a clear shot at the White House this year and it is as if they are doing their level best to lose it.

Kevin: "Hell, even I fell for this a couple of weeks ago, getting suckered into passing along a Drudge slander about Hillary's campaign supposedly circulating a photo of Obama in "Muslim" garb."

Then why haven't you updated that item with a retraction?

She's in the race only because her husband screwed around and he's in the race because he's black. Sicko!
We are a sick country peopled with people with sick beliefs. Par for the course for an empire in decline. Look at Nero or George Bush. More signs--the rich won't pay taxes or serve in the military and our leaders are more interested in screwing around (Spitzer, the unprotected sex god, Mr. Clinton, the safe sex god)than putting their shoulders to the wheel...

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam, where the Indians are still alive and the skies are not cloudy all day.

Kevin - I come here for the evenhanded and cool pacific/Pacific point of view.

But you're wrong about this one. She's run a shitty campaign and now it looks like she doesn't care how much of her shit splashes on the Dem. frontrunner, who is facing enough tough challenges as is, thanks.

It's her campaign's win at any cost/kitchen sink mentality that is pissing people like me off. I started out agnostic, but her campaign has actually made me detest her.

You get what you give, you give what you get. If Hillary couldn't take it, she shouldn't have been dishing it out.

These people are scum. They kick you in the groin and then start crying the minute you say something nasty to them. Fucking pathetic.

Thanks Kevin. I normally love reading progressive blogs and am a liberal but I can't stand the vitriol against Clinton and it's making me really really dislike Obama and his surrogates. Note to Surrogates: you will need me in the general, stop acting like self righteous jerks because I'm getting sick of hearing this crap from you.

Krugman trivia: This Sunday I opened the editorial page of the Columbus Dispatch, to find a Krugman column. For the first time ever (as Hillary would say, as far as I know). Now, the Editorial Page Editor is Glenn Sheller, as right-wing a wingnut and it ever fell from a Buckeye tree (see noleftturns.ashbrook.org). So, why suddenly Krugman? Why, he was bashing Obama.

The Republicans are loving this people. We're at each others' throats and the most prominent progressive pundit is spending his column inches to bash the Democratic frontrunner. Does nobody see anything wrong with this?

Ha, name me one time Krugman has done other than viciously slander Obama in every single column.

Attacks on Hillary, give me a break. She and her surrogates have been on attack since the campaign started (instanced too numberous to name), the daily attacks on Obama by Hillary's friends (Begala, Davis, Estrich, Carville, etc...) go mostly unanswered as Obama doesn't have his people doing this.

As other people have mentioned, what about Ferraro? If it weren't for nutty old Spitzer she would be the lead news story, what a role model for feminists. I'm waiting for a public apology from the Clinton camp, but Hillary doesn't do apology (or acknowledging defeat) well.

"a large part of the progressive movement seems to have lost its sanity"

And this is a surprise?

That Orlando Patterson NYT artical was wrong. But I'd just say there's a reason why she's only getting 10% of the African American vote. There is a palpable anger in the African American community at the Clintons. A lot of people feel they have fed the latino/AA divide and worked to ghettoize Obama's vote and play up the idea that he can not win white voters.

It's become a subtext of nearly all the reporting and the racial breakdowns; while Clinton's near lockdown of the female vote in general and the white female vote over 40 in particular is taken for granted and not labeled as a problem in a general election as Obama's demographic "issues" apparently are a problem.

And then you have people like Ferraro out there making comments, especially in the south and PA and Ohio, were when played sound to a lot of people like Afirmative action complaints. The idea that Obama doesn't DESERVE to be this far and is taking the job from the white lady and he's taken the job from these white men who were clearly FAR more qualified.

There are genuine reasons to be beyond pissed at Hillary Clinton; not the least being the African American vote is supposed to fall in line behind her ticket if she promotes the idea tha Barack Obama will be her VP.

Patterson went to far, but the Clinton's have crossed the line FAR more and it may just be fake out dog whistles to you. But a lot of people are hearing this and are beyond disappointed with the Clintons, they're enraged.

I want her to pull out too, because I think the longer this continues there will be a racial as well as demograpic and gender divide in this party. I think the facts and anectodatal evidence supports this; and going to Pennsylvania will harden this divide. And a joint ticket won't solve the problem.

I genuinely do loathe the Clinton campaign and reading the news daily at points Hillary herself. Maybe it's unhinged and insane in your opinion. But I know I am beyond disgusted with her campaign. I have felt personally hurt by it. I have been astounded at the lack of sustained reporting on this issue or the outrage over her hypocrisy and double talk.

It's not attractive and it's what makes a lot of Clinton voters think Obama supporters are wacked out maybe; but it's how I genuinely feel. Like she's destroying all chances for the general in some kamikaize effort that is beyond my abitlity to fathom. And no one much seems to care since a lot of the blogging and reporting DOES seem to feel like this should be her nomination.

"...a large part of the progressive movement seems to have lost its sanity."

Come on, Mr. Drum. You cite five or six examples of lunacy on the part of "progressives" (I agree that the examples you cite constitute lunacy) and conclude a "large part".

No doubt you could dig up hundreds of examples of progressive lunacy, even thousands if you dig through the venomous blog comments(such as one finds particularly prominent here). But there are millions upon millions upon millions of progressives, and a very small slice are pundits and/or blog denizens. And a miniscule slice are lunatics.

Perhaps you should get out more.

A lot is over the top, but the criticism of Clinton on 60 Minutes has a point. She could have said, "That is false. Obama is a Christian. The right wing is spreading those false rumors." Instead, she hemmed and hawed and seemed (I can't read minds) to be calculating the best answer as she went along. It wasn't a high political crime, but it wasn't her proudest moment either.

Obama supporters seriously need to fight back against Clinton's wholly natural political attacks --- but not in the manner in which they are doing.

(and I won't specify the acceptable manner for defending off these attacks.)

**How does eating my cake and having it sound to you?

Fuckn' Obamazooids. They flop around like fish screaming about how polarizing and bad for the party Hillary is, when they are the ones pushing this racist crap while building other negative narratives. The truth is, you shitheads are the ones trying to tear this party apart, unless you get your way, of course. What a bunch of childish brats...

Hillary Clinton needs to quit running, simply for the GOOD of the Democratic Party.

If she continues on, I have absolutely no doubt that she will continue in this vein of boosting McCain. That was and will be completely indefensible.

The word traitor comes to mind. I'm rooting for Nancy Pelosi to smack her on the head, SOON.

zaine_ridling on March 11, 2008 at 5:12 PM:

And after she wins FL and MI AGAIN..

Y'all need to stop saying that right about now; you're making yourselves look like fools.

Nobody won Michigan, where most of the Dem candidates weren't on the ballot and - contrary to what's being said - there wasn't record-level turnout there, with only around 20% of all registered voters participating...Anything less than having another primary or caucus or, less preferably, doing a 50/50-ish split of the available delegates between Clinton and Obama for no net gain in delegates is just another form of voter disenfranchisement. Clinton only has a slightly stronger claim to Florida, where none of the candidates 'forgot' to take their name off the ballot but agreed not to campaign and understood that the delegates weren't going to be seated.

First you're told your vote was meaningless, then a candidate tries to claim you voted for them...Ridiculous.

After elmo's comment, I think this thread may have run its course.

If Obama supporters think the stuff coming from Hillary is vicious, just wait until Rove and the Swiftboaters get going. Quit whining that she'll do anything to win. The whole problem with Kerry was that he WOULDN"T do anything to win. They threw him down in the mud over and over and he would not throw one punch. Sorry, but that just won't work. I've watched decades of Dem candidates come and go talking about transcending politics. They end up drowning instead.

I find it real hard to believe that Hillary is any kind of a KKK racist, given her history -- doesn't anyone remember all her work for the CDF, for example? And really, if she were driven solely by a lust for power, with her smarts, which are formidable, she could have gone the Wall St. route or the Republican route and gotten very far on her own. (Think: Condoleeza Rice. Think: Jeanne Kirkpatrick.) Shoot, if Hillary had signed on with the Republicans early in her life, she'd probably already BE president. But strange how she was more interested in assisting with the Watergate prosecutions. And then, working on children's issues and education problems in Arkansas doesn't seem the obvious path to power for a calculating power-maven. Everyone seems to act as if she had no life separate from Bill, no professional existence before First Lady and Senator, and that's just not true. In fact, the underlying assumption is extremely problematic, if you want to throw around accusations.

But what I wnat to know is how is Obama and his supporters going to respond when Rove is sending out massive mailings of Obama in a turban? How are you going to respond when all his henchmen continually drip the middle name Hussein across the networks? Not, I hope, by complaining that it's unfair and the foul Republicans will do anything to win. Because a great swath of the electorate will just snicker in response. And the Senate Republicans will just line up into their filibuster-proof wall and smile.

I also want to know why on earth, after so many defeats, you would want someone in office who won't fight with every ounce he or she has to win?

AND... about fighting for every delegate and superdelegate -- wouldn't it have been better if Al Gore had fought like that for every vote in Florida?

Hey zaine --
"She whomped him 3 out of 4 states in one day."
Um, a couple more whompings like Texas and she'll start to lose
delegates.

The winner is the one with the most delegates. It's not that hard to follow.

Kevin: poor Hillary? The concern troll label is surely fitting. For an Obama supporter you sure deliver the talking points for Clinton. The fact that Hillary actaully did not win more delegates last week, has lost twice more this week, STILL has not phased the national media campaign to keep her in the race. Good God, she seems to have made it this far on innuendo and republican votes alone. The sooner she steps away the better. Her attacks and insults continue apace. I expect no concession speech tonight, either. But Obabma supporters are sure mean, huh?

How are you going to respond when all his henchmen continually drip the middle name Hussein across the networks? Not, I hope, by complaining that it's unfair and the foul Republicans will do anything to win. Because a great swath of the electorate will just snicker in response.

Just curious KB, what do you think is the proper response?

The winner is the one with the most delegates.

No, the winner is the one who gets 2025 delegates.

I have seen this before. No one except Kevin is allowed to criticize Clinton.

I am a formal Hillary supporter. Sent money to her campaign twice, and months later realized that she is unelectable. For weeks after I caucused for Obama in Colorado, I was not happy watching her defeats. I admired her greatly.

But no more. Her response to whether Obama is Muslim left the door open just a smidgen so people just might think that well, maybe, it's true. The VP nonsense is gamesmanship that the Dem party can do without. Saying he's not ready to be commander-in-chief is ridiculous coming from someone who's legislative experience is less than his. And leaving the door open to going after pledged delegates is shameful. It's like ignoring a public vote and actually trying to nullify it.

I don't know about you, Kevin, but to me, this all speaks to character. And hers stinks.

A lefty crazy? No, I'm not. The woman has no shame. She wants it too much and will mow anyone and any principle down to get what she wants.

Her attacks and insults continue apace.

So does his. How come you guys didn't get made at your boy when he compared her to McFill-in and the old ways of Washington. Why doesn't this count? You guys are no better than lying wingnuts, and should be treated as such...

We're sorry Kevin. Hillary is no monster. Maybe a hobgoblin, but definitely no monster!

;-)

KB on March 11, 2008 at 5:43 PM:

But what I wnat to know is how is Obama and his supporters going to respond when Rove is sending out massive mailings of Obama in a turban? How are you going to respond when all his henchmen continually drip the middle name Hussein across the networks?

Like that's not happening now, KB. The answer to your question is simple: you firmly push back against it, then rise above it...the assholes will have no problem showing that they are, in fact, assholes...

I also want to know why on earth, after so many defeats, you would want someone in office who won't fight with every ounce he or she has to win?

You mean 'win at all costs', right? Funny...that's how Bush's campaign team approached the '04 and '00 elections. Problem is that thes