OK, I see why she's tearing down Obama, but explain why she's building up McCain?

I am beginning to think she is a "Monster"

To the degree that she is damaging Obama, it is not a good thing for Hillary. Her followers as well I see in a position that if she loses they will either sit out the election or vote McCain.

If that happens, you will see a huge counter-reaction. I am waiting to see whoever loses the primary to do a MAJOR job of rebuilding the party and re-joining their supporters to the party as a whole.

Well she just started attacking Obama on Wright in what seems to be verbatim right wing talking points... my magic 8 ball is "all signs point to yes" for preferring a McCain victory.

the thing is - with these circumstances, she try to claim that she is NOT a loser - if we'd counted Michigan & FL, etc... She'll try to claim she was robbed by technicalities, and that will give her EVEN MORE of an entitlement attitude towards the 2012 nomination.

And if she somehow wins the nomination but loses to McCain - Barack will be the shoe-in for 2012, claiming the nomination was stolen out from under him by superdelegates under the Clinton Machine's influence - and he'd be right.

If the Clinton machine was held together by its reputation for winning, rather than widespread warmth, her campaign would have collapsed a long time ago.

Believe it or not, Kevin, Hillary's supporters are as deeply passionate about their candidate as Obama's are. We love and admire her deeply, all the more so because she keeps getting back up when knocked down.

The people who aren't very entertained by the triviality of what pundits and bloggers are always focusing on see a woman committed to public service and the force of good that government can be. It's not about winning for its own sake, so you can "bring people together." It's to put public policies in place that will make our country's weaker parts of society stronger and more protected.

Working-class Democrats look at Hillary and know that she'll work her fingers to the bone, and never throw us under the bus. That's a powerful motivating force, and it's why Obama can't peel these people away. People who don't have much to start out with don't like to gamble; we want somebody who's proven herself to be on our side.

I think Hillary is simply waiting for Barack to promise her the first SCOTUS nomination of the Obama presidency. Once he does so, she will call off the dogs. C'mon Barack. Give it to her. Rightwing nutjobs who are already peeing and pooping their pants with the thought of having Hillary around for 8 years would lose total control of all bodily functions forever if she were placed in a position she would hold for life!!

"John McCain" at the top.

The only way this makes sense is if McCain wins. She is not gonna be able to win a primary campaign against an incumbent president, AND also win the general.

So IF you assume that there is nothing more important to Clinton than being president some day, then she should indeed be building up McCain while tearing down Obama.

That assumes she doesn't care about any of the things she says she cares about, from children's health care to women's reproductive freedom. That assumes that she wants to be president, and she doesn't care what happens to the country, just so long that she gets to be president.

That is, not to put too fine a point on it, is absurd.

IMO, what's going on here is simple. There is no second prize. She won't settle for anything less than the presidency--anything else is a step down from her role as First Lady. And she cannot possibly expect to get the nomination in 2016.

Working-class Democrats look at Hillary and know that she'll work her fingers to the bone, and never throw us under the buss.

Unless the subject is NAFTA or the Bankruptcy Bill.

I'm a Hillary supporter because I think she'll make a great president. Hillary will most likely lose the Democratic nomination. However, I think Obama will lose to McCain in the general election. Obama has too many vulnerabilities and the Republicans are going to overemphasize and exploit those vulnerabilties (experience & patriotism will be the killers of Obama).

That said, Hillary will campaign for Obama (not over-the-top) and if Obama loses I think Hillary will be in a great position to exploit Obama's loss (especially if experience & patriotism are his undoing) because the democratic race was close and these weaknesses were raised by Hillary supporters.

This is really her one and only shot at the Presidency, and she's already blown it.

By now, even if she somehow wins the nomination, she will lose the general.

If Obama loses the general, she will receive a lot of the blame and basically not have a chance at the nomination in 2012.

If Obama wins, she won't have a chance in 2016.

John m, you are wrong. If Obama loses the general election, which I predict he will, it will because of his vulnerabilities as a candidate (experience and patriotism). Believe me when I say that the Republicans will pound on these two issues, along with the statement that Obama is just another "tax and spend" liberal. Hillary will have had nothing to do with Obama's loss. Stop drinking the cool-aid.

I'd like to echo the first comment. Yes, it's true that the tendency is for candidates who've invested so much of their life in the race to go on beyond the point where they should logically concede. So if Clinton were merely soldiering on, fighting Obama every step of the way, I could understand.

But she has specifically asserted that John McCain is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama. It is that assertion, which she repeated several times and several ways, that raises suspicion that, if it can't be her, she'd rather see McCain than Obama as president, probably so she can run in 2012.

We seem to have three political parties:
Democrats, Republicans, and Clintons. Enough, already.

That some folks are even wondering whether Hillary Clinton wants the Democrats to win in 2008 shows how far they've gone off the deep end.

Who do you think is more loyal to the Democratic Party? The one who keeps talking about how important it is to elect a Democrat this year, or the one who keeps blaming both parties for deadlock in Washington, spoke approvingly of Ronald Reagan, called the GOP the party of ideas, is actively trying to get Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary and keeps making the right-wing case against universal health care?

I think her "dodging sniper fire in Bosnia" will forever be her "I invented the internet" moment except that Gore did not actually say that and she did. I do not think she can win the Democrat nomination process this year or any year and I know she can not win the general unless Dumbya gets nominated for a third term

her "dodging sniper fire in Bosnia" will forever be her "I invented the internet" moment except that Gore did not actually say that and she did
=====================

That's really very funny. Shouldn't you put one of those winking faces made out of a semicolon at the end?

american voters pick hope over fear in most elections (ie FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton). Competence is a non-starter. (Carter, Mondale, Dukas, Gore, Kerry). Other than LBJ, the repub's are always the hard asses. That will be the same if Clinton runs against McCain. Obama will run on hope. That's something we need right now and is a proven formula (it even worked for W.).

Reading this line of thinking...about what the Clintons are thinking staying in the race past the point of no return...leaves out one critical component: Sen. Obama. Win or lose (preferably the former)and barring a total implosion, he will be the leading man of the Democratic party. There's the Father Time factor.. Hillary is in her 60's, Obama in his 40's and the Polical factor...Democratic majorities in the House and Senate as well a crop of good Democratic Governors means that should McCain win, after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, there will be far more competition for the job than there was this year.

"Unless the subject is NAFTA or the Bankruptcy Bill."

Well, that is an unsupported and erroneous statement as to the bankruptcy bill that passed in 2005. Clinton was on the working man's and woman's side of all the votes for the proposed amendments designed to rectify the shortcomings of the bill. More importantly, Clinton was on the right side of the cloture vote on this bill. Yes, Clinton missed the actual vote on the bill, a bill that would have passed even with her vote. But her position on the bill was well advertised prior to the final vote by the Senate, by her statements and her actual actions, so you can't really hang the bankruptcy bill on Clinton. There is plenty to pound her with, but not that.

This post is a joke. Is it fun to pretend people we don't like are evil schemers? Or is this just garden variety hackery? The worst part is this shortsighted garbage may be self destructive should Sen Clinton win the nomination. Nothing should undermine the goal of a Democratic president, no matter how much fun it is.

Hillary is staying in for one reason only: To Win. Period.

candidates routinely keep running campaigns long after independent observers have written them off (see McCain, John Sidney, c. 2007), so that doesn't really mean anything.

McCain may have been sucking wind but he still had at least some chance, however implausible it seemed at the time.

Hillary on the other hand is not in that position. The rules of the game and basic math simply don't allow a comeback for her--unless she can change the rules.

Personally, I think Hillary is running the type of campaign she is because she feels this year is her best opportunity. One that won't come again. This is do or die for her.

Anyone who actually tries to call Hillary at 3AM will find out that she really is a monster. She becomes a less attractive candidate with each passing day.

Not because she thinks it will set her up for 2012, but because she knows perfectly well this is her last chance.

I think this is right. Unlike others here, I think Obama will win, and not in a squeaker. The fundamentals are horrifically bad for the GOP, a fact for which they can largely thank themselves. This is a Democratic year if ever there was one, and if Hillary doesn't grab the top spot now, it won't open up again till she's too old to run.

The Clinton machine obviously has its admirers, but I think it's held together mainly by its reputation for winning, not by any widespread warmth for Hillary. If she loses, that reputation vanishes. What's more, if she's under suspicion of sabotaging the party already merely because she's continuing to run her primary campaign, what are the odds she can escape unscathed if Obama actually goes on to lose? No matter what kind of support she gives him, I'd say slim and none.

Bullshit! Could you be any more patronizing, Kevin?

Blech!

The Clinton machine obviously has its admirers, but I think it's held together mainly by its reputation for winning, not by any widespread warmth for Hillary. If she loses, that reputation vanishes. What's more, if she's under suspicion of sabotaging the party already merely because she's continuing to run her primary campaign, what are the odds she can escape unscathed if Obama actually goes on to lose? No matter what kind of support she gives him, I'd say slim and none.

Bullshit! Could you be any more patronizing, Kevin?

Blech!

Time to drop out, this primary between the two is just becoming an embarrassment for her. People in high places should get the message and put the pressure on her to leave.

Hillary Clinton today:

"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."...

She forgot to add that you don't choose your husband either. I guess.

And she needs to be a better, more aggressive, more courageous senator than she has been.

--Mike Tomasky

Which she will never, ever do because that's not her style. The Clinton style is triangulation, and that precludes aggressiveness (outside of campaigning) and courage.

If Obama loses the general election, which I predict he will, it will because of his vulnerabilities as a candidate (experience and patriotism).

--NJ

Yes, because experience and patriotism did so well for Kerry.

/snark

We can sit here all day and try to decide what the GOP will do to a Dem candidate, but in the end all that will happen is we all agree the GOP will attack the Dem candidate no matter what.

To think that Obama is somehow more vulnerable to GOP attacks than Clinton is absurd.

I honestly can't see Clinton as so cold and narcissistic to destroy the party out of spite. That requires an amazing amount of pettiness I refuse to believe she has.

Clinton was on the working man's and woman's side of all the votes for the proposed amendments designed to rectify the shortcomings of the bill. More importantly, Clinton was on the right side of the cloture vote on this bill. Yes, Clinton missed the actual vote on the bill, a bill that would have passed even with her vote. But her position on the bill was well advertised prior to the final vote by the Senate, by her statements and her actual actions, so you can't really hang the bankruptcy bill on Clinton. There is plenty to pound her with, but not that.

Voting against cloture in 2005 doesn't quite square with actions she took in 1997 & 2001, which Ari Berman describes in an article that's well worth reading:

In 2002 (Clinton) backed a harsh position on welfare reform reauthorization that put her at odds even with conservative Republicans like Orrin Hatch. She persuaded her husband to veto the bankruptcy bill in 1997, voted for a similar version in 2001 and missed the vote in 2005, when Bill was in the hospital.

Furthermore,

She advocated weakening the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, telling Feingold to "live in the real world." Unlike Edwards and Obama, she accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists and corporate PACs. "Ask them why they don't take money from lobbyists," Wolfson retorts. "We're proud of our support."

It's become a commonplace that Clinton is on the right side when it comes to the battle against corporate kleptocracy, and that she's down with ordinary folks & has the interest of blue-collar voters at heart, but there's a significant amount in her history to question that.

Yes, I don't think that a connection between Hillary and an Obama downfall will be forgotten. Especially because a candidate of Obama's stature comes along so rarely, his loss will be especially painful to his supporters, and that includes most of the hillary supporters who will rally to him as Democrats for the general.

Honestly, I think Clinton's best chance to maintain political capital would be to drop out now, before Pennsylvania where she will most certainly win.

If she dropped out before PA she could remove herself from responsibility for inflicting wounds on Obama. She can wear the good-of-the-party robe from now till November. She can probably exploit the move to achieve some level of power from the Obama camp.

That can't happen if the party watches her crash and burn in Denver, as she sets herself aflame and Obama too.

If she drags this out, and she certainly can - it's not like Obama can come up with the right amount of delegates prior to Denver (unless all the Supers decide to come out before too), I think most party members will remember her quixotic march to the convention.

If Obama (and the Democrats)miss out on what should be the biggest slam dunk of a victory in November, Clinton's contributions will not be forgotten.

If she wants Obama to lose, better to quit now so she can really argue she has remained above the fray.

Laura Bush/Nancy Reagan in 2012!

Everything Hillary does and says is attributed to malice. This is just another flavor of it.

Hillary is fighting because this is her last chance. If she doesn't win this one, she knows its over and she becomes the senator from NY, period.

(since I'm a LOTR nerd, this is kinda like Galadriel being tempted with the Ring by Frodo. Does she remain Hillary and fade into the East or will she take the Ring and become dark and terrible and we shall all despair? :D)

Mark D, you've made my point Republicans will argue that Obama has neither. Although Kerry does not compare to Obama and he was a horrible candidate, the swiftboating and other accusations of elitism killed Kerry and I expect the same to happen to Obama.

No chance for her in 2012, Kevin.

In 2012, her Senate seat comes up. She has to decide which run to make. Also, dissing Gerry Ferraro aside, women do face more ageism than men. So, here’s my Quo vadis Hillary take, including the fallout she will have from Dems if Obama loses the general.

Meanwhile, Hillary is jumping off the deep end by pushing the Obama-Wright angle to the winger Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, mouthpiece of billionaire (at least, until his divorce is finalized) wingnut Richard Mellon Scaife.

I think the reason that she has not dropped out is that she knows that this is her one and only shot at the presidency.

If she wins the nomination through some shady superdelegate dealing (pretty much the only way she can win at this point), she will almost certainly lose the general because many Obama supporters will either stay at home or vote for Nader or McCain.

If Obama wins the presidency, she's done, because Obama's VP will be the front-runner for the nomination in 2016.

If Obama wins the primary but loses the general, people will be so angry at Hillary for undermining Obama that she will have little chance at the nomination in 2012.

NJ is right. There is a significant chance that Obama will lose this election and not because of anything that Hillary does, though Hillary haters will try to spin it that way. We're going to see whether Obama's unconventional aspects can stand up to months of GOP pounding. I hope he can, and there's reason behind that hope -- McCain is not a strong candidate and there is an underlying antipathy towards Republicans in general -- but Obama could lose, and if he does, he's going to wearing it, not Hillary.

Count me among those who thinks it's just possible that Hillary thinks she would make a better President than Obama and that she believes there is still an outside chance of winning and it would be an insult to her supporters to quit right now. Of course, I don't have the psychic and psychoanalytical powers of many of the posters here.

I remember when candidates were routinely given the benefit of the doubt when they continued their quest with a far greater deficits than Hillary has right now. Such things as bargaining power on any number of issues were automatically assumed to be in the mix.

Of course, CDS colors all sorts media coverage nowadays, including in the blogosphere.

Matt Yglesias? Give me a break. He is a good liberal voice on most issues, but he deserves and is happy, I think, to accept his share of the credit for assigning equal blame to George W. Bush, Hillary, Kerry, and Hagel for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That's not exactly Occam's Razor at work, that's CDS.

"The Clinton machine obviously has its admirers, but I think it's held together mainly by its reputation for winning, not by any widespread warmth for Hillary."

This is getting beyond silly. And frankly I thought better of you, Kevin.

People are voting for HRC because they do like her. They aren't voting against Obama ... they are voting for Hillary.

NJ and sj--
Again, what makes Clinton so immune to GOP attacks?

What makes you both think she can somehow overcome them, yet Obama can't?

What makes you think her nearly 20 years of being a GOP target is actually a plus?

And how does the experience argument benefit Clinton (since she's been in elected office for a shorter time than Obama, she actually has less experience -- again, shtooping the Prez doesn't count as "experience" ... at least none that matters)?

Seriously.

I guess I just don't understand why you all are so damn scared of the GOP attacking Obama. Yes, they will. And they would no matter who the Dem nominee is. It's who they are. Do you honestly think the Obama folks aren't aware of that fact?

(Note: I am an Obama supporter, but would happily vote for Clinton if she manages to defy logic and get the nod, and I think she'd make a darn fine president. Just so you know I'm really not trying to slam her -- I just don't get the concerns is all.)

Meanwhile, Hillary is jumping off the deep end by pushing the Obama-Wright angle to the winger Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, mouthpiece of billionaire (at least, until his divorce is finalized) wingnut Richard Mellon Scaife.

The very same Richard Mellon Scaife who funded the Arkansas Project, which brought us Whitewater & Troopergate. The very same guy who pushed the idea that the Clintons ran a drug smuggling empire (with the help of the CIA, no less) out of Mena, AR, and that Clinton had had Vince Foster killed in order to take the heat off of Whitewater. And now she's sitting down for interviews with this guy's paper?

Of course, CDS colors all sorts media coverage nowadays, including in the blogosphere.

If you think cutely copping a Republican slur helps Hillary Clinton much, you might want to think again.

FWIW, Clinton didn't help herself by opening the Wright business up again, she hurt Obama. Not smart on her part at all, given her past with Bill.

America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. has already selected John McCain as the next president of the USA.

So, just as in 2000 and 2004, the corporate-owned mass media from which most Americans get most of their information will wage a propaganda campaign in favor of McCain, and a corresponding onslaught of character assassination against the Democratic nominee, which will enable McCain to get close enough to steal the election with voter disenfranchisement and fraud.

Clinton and Obama are unacceptable to America's corporate overlords for two reasons: first, they believe that capitalism should be held accountable to at least some minimal rule of law, and that outright corruption and thievery should not be acceptable in the so-called "free market". Second, they believe that the middle class and the working class should get a few crumbs from the table of the ultra-rich.

America's corporate rulers have a different approach to governance, which is reflected in the policies of their wholly-owned subsidiary, Republican Party of Cheney, Bush and McCain: corporate corruption and criminality as the basic approach to doing business, and a kick in the teeth rather than crumbs from the table.

Keep in mind that Hillary was raised as a Republican. Not to be a conspiratorialist, but maybe she is a pseudo-liberal "Manchurian candidate", whose objective is to destroy the Democratic Party.

If so, it's working....

Kevin C: Working-class Democrats look at Hillary and know that she'll work her fingers to the bone, and never throw us under the bus.

As a former Clinton defender (from 1990 to as recently as last Thanksgiving), I've wondered if my support wasn't based on something like the, "(s)he's a son of a b*tch, but (s)he's our son of a b*tch" feeling. However, I don't find it very compelling when there are other, better options on offer.

As a philosophy, I think it implies, "I don't care about unity and whether anybody else can like my candidate."

I can see the point in guessing about 2012. But assuming whoever wins in 2008 will win again in 2012 seems like a stretch to me. So saying Person X will run or can't run in 2016 is beyond useful, IMHO.

In addition, based on the mess W & Cheney are leaving the next Prez, it may be very hard to be re-elected in 2012, aka Carter. Despite his faults, cleaning up after Nixon/Ford including the economy almost doomed him no matter how good a Prez he could have possibly been.

Finally, great point about new Dem governors and more competition in next non-Dem incumbent Prez race. That is exciting to me fhor shure.

"Working-class Democrats look at Hillary and know that she'll work her fingers to the bone, and never throw us under the bus"

ROFL. Seriously now...

I think that Obama will get the nomination. Those of us who prefer Hillary will have to figure out what we are going to do. Right now I have no idea; I don't like either of the remaining candidates.

junie: And now she's sitting down for interviews with this guy's paper?

Well, she is a transactional politician. She simply thinks that the innermost feelings of shame engendered by such an interview pale in comparison to the super bummer of not being president. And she's willing to do what she needs to do to save the country from the crushing pain of not having her as our president. She's that committed.

Actually, I don't think an Obama loss in the general election would materially change Hillary's standing among Democrats.

The Dems who currently don't like her would continue to not like her, seeing her as the Ralph Nader of 2008: the spoiler who put a Republican in the White House.

The Dems who already like her would continue to like her, seeing her more as the Al Gore of 2008: the person who deserved to win but was robbed. (Don't forget that an Obama loss in the general would vindicate the belief that Hillary is more electible.)

She would remain a polarizing figure; this seems to be her destiny. Whether she had a shot in 2012 would depend on who the other candidates were.

Look, I don't think Hillary has some nefarious plan to undermine Obabma's chances in the fall; it is simply in her nature to fight until her chances are exhausted.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the democratic party will be permanently damaged by this contest. I actually think that whoever emerges the winner will be the stronger for having battled through.

This is a close contest. Both candidates have a lot to offer. I'm willing to let the rest of the states vote.

jimBOB, just in case you think there's no one here who sees things the way you do: I agree completely. Hillary knows that the fundamentals of this election are so poor for the GOP that if she manages to eke out the Dem nomination -- by any means -- she'll be the 44th president. That's why she's fighting so hard. I don't see the need to jump to she-hopes-Obama-will-lose-to-set-up-2012.

It may well also be that the Clinton camp, locked in '90s arithmetic, thinks Obama can't win the general -- that it takes a triangulator to win in this country, ever -- but I think that's a fundamentally shallow reading of the electorate. Just as the circumstances of 1980 made the unelectable Reagan president (and shattered the "natural Democratic majority" paradigm then in favor), circumstances this year make any Democrat electable, and give them an oppotunity to shift the center of political gravity.

I wonder if today’s poll numbers from the Rasmussen Reports is what has the Obama supporters so upset. Hillary leads Obama 46% to 43%.

Also, she does better against McCain than Obama does:

McCain 50
Obama 41

McCain 48
Hillary 43

But, most striking is the abrupt drop of 10 points in Obama’s favorability ratings over the last month. He beats Hillary by only one point: 46 to 45. And, today, he matches Hillary’s unfavorable rating at 52%. It took 15 years of pounding by the RW for Hillary to reach that score. It took Obama only one month.

I guess the Obama supporters want to believe that Hillary caused Obama’s unfavorables to rise. They want to put their heads in the sand and ignore Obama’s missteps of the last few weeks. They are desperate for Hillary to drop out before Obama makes more mistakes. Basically, they are afraid to compete with Hillary any longer.

Consider the implications of a McCain win for the Supreme Court. All of the liberal justices are over retirement age (Stevens is 87), so the next president will likely determine the makeup of the Supreme Court for decades.

Those of us who prefer Hillary will have to figure out what we are going to do.

Pfff....you serious? Hillary and Obama are nearly identical on every issue. But if Hillary loses, you're going to have a tough decision?? Ok....

Obama supporters (of which I am one) on the other hand will have legitimate reason to be pissed if Hillary manages to steal the nomination away. So I can see why some of us would have trouble voting for Hillary.

But what you're saying is that your attitude from the beginning was "Hillary or no one".

I think Kevin misstates Jon Chait's position by describing it as "sorta." Chait's point is that it doesn't matter whether Clinton wants to end Obama's chances in November, when the actions she's choosing to take are having that effect:

"But this is speculation. An easier question to answer is, How much does Clinton value her own interests versus those of the Democratic Party? And here the answer is very clear: Clinton is acting as if she doesn't care about the Democratic Party's interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own. Her continued campaign is significantly damaging Obama's general election prospects, and this would perhaps be defensible if she had a strong chance at the nomination, but she doesn't. As Politico recently reported, "One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives."

Now, since we all rightfully roll our eyes at Politico (and we can also do without pretending Bobo's got a corner on analysis all of a sudden), here are all the numbers, crunched every way possible, including superdelegates. Those who are clinging to the hope that Clinton will win Pennsylvania 90-10, get Michigan seated as is, charm the superdelegates en masse, etc., might want to take a look.

But, most striking is the abrupt drop of 10 points in Obama’s favorability ratings over the last month. He beats Hillary by only one point: 46 to 45...I guess the Obama supporters want to believe that Hillary caused Obama’s unfavorables to rise. They want to put their heads in the sand and ignore Obama’s missteps of the last few weeks.

That is most striking isn't it? After a couple of weeks of Fox News and right-wing media portraying Obama as Farrakhan, HE STILL HAS A BETTER FAVORABILITY RATING THAN HILLARY! Wow, what a positive for Hillary that is....

Oh, for God's sake, grow up, everyone. Jesus, the paranoia and fear-mongering is almost worse than the Wingnuts'! Get a grip. Clinton wants to be president. She's fighting a political battle. If she wins the nomination, she'll battle John McCain. If she loses the nomination, the WORST she willl do is walk away and sulk. This talk of her conspiring to hand the presidency to the Republicans shows incredible ignorance, paranoia, and immaturity. Take a deep breath, everyone.

I have a blog entry about Clinton resurrecting the Wright story at http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com
Excerpt:
"...Until Bosnia, sniper fire and ducked heads. Hillary Clinton's dumb insistence on grandly embellishing her visit to Bosnia bit her in the butt. The media has picked up on the story, splicing together video of her recounting the harrowing ordeal with actual footage of her very peaceful arrival at Tuzla. Embarrassing, to say the least. The story has prompted some closer investigation into Mrs. Clinton's executive experience claims, and it looks like there's more "big fish" tales from Senator Clinton waiting to be investigated more fully: Northern Ireland, Macedonia, SCHIP legislation, Family and Medical Leave Act."

It's indeed interesting that people like NJ have added "patriotism" to the list of Obama's shortcomings, the insinuation coming down from Mr.Semen-on-blue-dress Himself.

Of course, we all know how patriotic the Clintons are. Why, Hillary even risked a stroll through a runway in Tuzla for this country's sake! And Bill clinton got patriotic blowjobs when the country was going through a great crisis with a Federal shutdown.

After all the muck they drew Americans through in their years in the White House, they are touting that very thing as the argument for reelecting them. Some nerve.

Mark D, Hillary has her vulnerabilities but I don't think they compare to Obama's vulnerabilities. Hillary cannot be attacked on experience and patriotism and Obama can, very easily.

On the experience issue I find it funny that people discount that Hillary was the first lady for eight years. There's no doubt in my mind that Bill sought Hillary's advice on a variety of issues which she shouldn't and could not disclose for various privileged reasons. Hillary has also been reelected as the Senator of NYC and she has established herself as a hard working Senator and someone who can work with Republicans if they're reasonable.

On the other hand, Obama must rely on his experience as a "community" organizer, whatever that means and I'm sure we'll find out once the Republican start digging in, and his brief two year stint as a senator.

Mark, I'm not trying to hate on Obama but he has some major weaknesses that will be exploited to the max. Notice that I have not even mentioned the Wright issue...

Hillary has been attacked in the past and she's held up well. We have no clue on how Obama will hold up because he's never been in a contested election until now.

Kevin is right: the 2012 conspiracy is implausible. However, there's a related complaint against Clinton which is plausible...

Suppose that as of right now, Clinton has a 10% chance to get the nomination. Now, here's a strategic question for her to consider. Suppose she could run a certain attack against Obama (on Wright, on 3:00 a.m., on whatever) which on the one hand would bump up her chances to 15%, and on the other hand would damage Obama significantly (and thus the party) for the general. Now, 15% is still a longshot, is it worth damaging the likely nominee with the attack? Self-interest says yes, party-interest says no.

The legitimate complaint against Clinton is that when faced with options like this, each and every time she takes the self-interest option. This is what makes her a "monster" or someone who will "do anything to win" or whatever. So, I don't think Clinton is gaming for 2012, but I do think the campaign she has run is almost indistguishable from the one she would run if she were gaming for 2012.

For a contrast, take Huckabee. Once McCain was established as the frontrunner, Huckabee could have tried various attacks which would have both bumped up his own small odds and also hurt McCain in the general. For the most part, Huckabee pulled his punches: he attacked McCain on some things, but other things were clearly off limits. I doubt Clinton regards any attack on Obama as off limits.

Again, what makes Clinton so immune to GOP attacks? What makes you both think she can somehow overcome them, yet Obama can't?

Mark D. Let's distinguish a couple of things here. First, I don't know that Obama can't overcome GOP attacks. He does seem like an innovative candidate and a pretty good thinker. But if he doesn't, it will be his fault and not Hillary's. He should have known what his negatives were coming in and not run unless he had a good strategy to deal with them. Rev. Wright is a wild card that could play out very well for the GOP if they get to play it for months and McCain doesn't immolate and they keep Iraq and Iran on the backburner.

Second, I think Hillary's negatives are about as deep as they going to get after 16 years of pounding. They might even improve a bit with plenty of money and a lacklustre McCain performance. Her big challenge right now is to stay calm and not alienate any more Obama people and not provide grounds for new attacks (e.g., no more "sniper fire" stories.

I was a Hillary supporter but in the last week I've switched over and sent money to Barama. Personally, I thought the speech was great.

Did I miss something? I thought that NEITHER candidate currently had enough votes to win the nomination and that is was unlikely that EITHER candidate could obtain enough delegates before the convention. If this is true, why do you frame the question in a way that is misleading? I'm not a fan of either candidate, but I am looking for truth.

All the talks about Obama's "inevitability" reminds that if this election has taught us anything at all it is that nothing is "inevitable" in this contest:

1. Hillary was the "inevitable" nominee until she was upset in IA.

2. Obama then became the "inevitable" nominee (Jon Chait, famously: "Hillary = toast") until NH toppled that bandwagon.

3. Then Super Tuesday was going to "clarify" the picture, with Hillary being favored to do well, but the outcome was a draw and the picture got even muddier.

4. After winning 12-13 straight contests post-Super Tuesday, Obama was again the "inevitable" until he failed to deliver the knock out punch in TX and OH.

5. And now, we are in limbo. No one knows what will happen because the contest is in the hands of superdelegates, who seem perfectly happy to just "wait and see." Obama is not "inevitable" because anything could happen between now and Denver, or in Denver...and it propably will.

Hillary has been attacked in the past and she's held up well.

It's more like Hillary Clinton has been attacked in the past and Bill Clinton has held up well. Clinton's two Senate contests in NY weren't tough at all, if not as easy as Obama's trouncing of Alan Keyes.

Ramki, get a grip... Obama's Patriotism will be challenged by the Republicans and if you don't understand this you've been drinking the cool-aid for too long.

I don't need to go into too much detail but Obama has taken a very nuanced approach when it comes to Patriotism. Obama doesn't believe he needs to wear the "US Flag Pin" on his lapel to show his love for the US.

I believe Obama is correct in this stance, but I don't think my opinion is the majority opinion. These types of nuanced stances by Obama will be exploited by the Republicans and it will allow them to challenge Obama's patriotism. This will not be Obama's down fall but when you start adding this type of stuff up a general election may be a problem for Obama.

Hillary has been attacked in the past and she's held up well. We have no clue on how Obama will hold up because he's never been in a contested election until now. Posted by: NJ on March 25, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Holding up well? Wasn't the lament not too long ago that the media were throwing softballs and adoring Barack and doing everything they could to cast a bad light on Hillary, and that's why she wasn't doing well in the polls?

Don't you realize this is going to be repeated in the Fall with John McCain replacing Barack?

The "liberal" media is going to lob softballs at him, forgive every pratt fall, every "senile moment", every temper outburst.

And they'll continue to highlight every negative thing, true or not, about the Hillary campaign.

This is Hillary's strength over Obama?

She was losing in the polls before when she went up against Obama with the "deck stacked against her". What makes you think it's going to be any different in the Fall?

It's not, should she get the nomination the media dogpile will make sure the general outcome is close enough for the Repubs to steal another election.

Tell me again why Hillary should stay in?

I don't need to go into too much detail but Obama has taken a very nuanced approach when it comes to Patriotism. Obama doesn't believe he needs to wear the "US Flag Pin" on his lapel to show his love for the US.

The saddest part about this campaign is how some supporters on both sides of this contest for the Democratic nomination are internalizing the GOP's bogus arguments. That may be the way it is, but I for one am not going to believe them.

From now on all the responsibility for whatever harm omes to the demoratic party will be in Obama and his campaign's lap.

Revotes in Flo. and Michigan would completely resove the primary race in June...not August. The delgate numbers would be known, the popular vote totals would be done...the momentum issue would be estaablished.

Obama is afraid he would lose those states and so to mkae sure he won't lose he is making sure that nealrly 3 million ( how big the revote numbers would be) will be disenfranchised.

Voting is the basic foundation of democracy and he is engaging in as much disenfranhisement as any scheming Republican.

He is willing to have a fight at the cnvention to make sure he doesn't lose. The only person responsible for the ugliness t aht August might be is Barack Obama and his campign.

If Sen. Clinton really wanted to endear herself to Democrats, liberals and Blacks for a future presidential run or just for historical reasons, she should withdraw from the race now and throw her full support to Sen. Obama. Her continued attacks against her Democratic opponent erodes her traditional support and has cracked the popularity of her husband.

Most moderates and liberals hope/think a Democrat will win in November, and Sen. Clinton no doubt wants to be that Democrat. However, if Obama should lose, the draft Gore people of today will become the draft Clinton people of 2012, but only if she does not burn her suppport by staying in the current race too long.

It just amazes me that Dems are OK with not counting Florida and Michigan.

Repubs can't win without Florida; Dems can't win without Michigan.

And it's OK with people just to leave out something like 9% of the voters if it gets them the result they want?

God I want this primary to be over. She is becoming so desperate. Her supporters, the vocal ones, are the take-no-prisoners kind. "Obama did this, he does that. I'll vote for McCain if she's not the one..."

It could get worse.

Jethro, they did it to themselves. They already knew that they would not be allowed to participate in the primary if they moved their primaries outside of the window (which their local Dem Party agreed to before).

They changed it, they knew what was going to happen, and now you and they are asking for a redo? What is fair about that?

David W.: I don’t what Republican slur you could be referring to; however, it was certainly a Republican slur when the Bush campaign, back in 2004, began assigning equal blame to Kerry for the Iraq fiasco. By the time Obama began running for President, I suppose he couldn’t help himself since many democrats, especially those who did not particularly like Hillary, took it as a matter of faith. I think most candidates would have done the same.

She simply thinks that the innermost feelings of shame engendered by such an interview pale in comparison to the super bummer of not being president.

And back during the immediate wake of the Scaife-funded Arkansas Project, she and Bill were welcoming Scaife to a White House function, knowing what he was doing behind the scenes. Things can be complicated. Most people I know are pretty good at convincing themselves that their opponents are worse than themselves.

It could get worse.

Say hello to Supreme Court Justices Alberto Gonzales & J. Michael Luttig.

What is with all the "if Hillary wants to do what is best for the party, she should drop out" crap. This is a pernicious meme. Al Gore took that "advice" in 2000 and stopped contesting Florida--now there are 4000 dead soldiers, and hundreds of thousand dead Iraqis, because he acted "for the good of the country".

I want a politician who will fight hard. Perhaps some of you remember Ross Perot in 1992, he offered a fresh perspective on things, but when the heat was turned up on him, he dropped out. Bill Clinton, in contrast, kept persevering, like Hillary is doing now; and indeed, I happen to find that one of their most endearing shared characteristics.

Hillary has no thoughts about 2012. She's 60 years old already; that's on the old side for a Democrat as it is. This year is her only shot and she knows it. Hence the desperation.

Yes, things can be complicated, little ole jim. But sometimes, after weeks and weeks and weeks of growing taller, the pile of evidence that some things are pretty simple gets too high to ignore.

In the previous thread on this same topic, I characterized Clinton as someone who really wants to win this election, and scoffed at the idea that she's a nefarious plotter with an eye on 2012. I've said that I don't think anyone runs for president without a huge ego and, in most cases, a sense that they're the only really decent candidate. Here you will find some Obama supporters who have gone far over the top with their characterizations of Clinton as Dr. Evil. I don't believe you can fairly call me one of them. And I don't believe that you can make a convincing argument that both Clintons haven't campaigned on a number of messages--most egregiously, but certainly not limited to, repeatedly endorsing McCain's qualifications over Obama's--that point to them valuing Clinton's candidacy this fall over larger considerations of party and, by extension, Democratic values.

I need hardly point out that the Clinton campaign has moved the goalposts for choosing the nominee so many times that one needs a chart to keep up with them--from stating after Iowa that pledged delegates will be what counts, to discounting (and insulting) all but a few states, to pretending that the caucuses they've participated in for years are suddenly unfair, to trying to get a delegation seated in which her opponent was not even on the ballot, to calling Wisconsin and then Texas/Ohio and now Pennsylvania her firewall, to arguing that superdelegates should only count big blue states and ignore Obama's pledged delegate lead, yada yada. The Clintons and their campaign have also racked up a number of that-was-then-this-is-now moments, from Clinton suggesting the electoral college should be abolished (2000) to now arguing that the primary should be decided on electoral votes (!), to bombarding Rick Lazio with demands that he release his tax returns (2000) to so far refusing to release any of the Clintons' from 2000 on, to Bill Clinton advocating voting for the candidate who "makes you hope" (2004) to Hillary Clinton making a habit of mocking Obama's emphasis on the same theme, and on and on.

So one really can be excused for beginning to think that HRC is less interested in a larger, cohesive philosophy of politics and personal conduct than she is in taking whatever step seems helpful to her at a given moment, and the party be damned.

After seeing how she's acted in this primary, I will never EVER cast a vote for HRC.

In fact, I hate her so much at this point I'm inclined to donate to her opponent in New York's next Senate election campaign. She's evil enough to make a Democrat vote Republican.

Well, hell yeah, I excuse everybody, including myself. After all, I warned everybody above that I'm no good at psychoanalysis. That, and the fact that all that evidence cited can be argued by honest people and, as a Florida voter, I don't exactly think I've been treated fairly.

Yeah, it was pointless for me to even try. I knew better/

Revotes in Flo. and Michigan would completely resove the primary race in June...not August.

Not any more than Texas and Ohio did. How many delegates did Hillary pick up? 6? It wouldn't necessarily resolve anything, only allow two states that knew they were violating party rules have a do-over. I don't believe there should be re-votes unless those states pay for all of it out of their own pockets, period.

Hillary is clearly fighting this one on principle. The principle is that she must win at all costs.

CLINTON/NADER '08 !!!!

In the event that she fails to win the Democratic nomination, is Hillary Clinton actively hoping that Barack Obama loses in November, thus opening up the possibility of another Hillary run in 2012?

Frankly, I've gone back & forth on this question in my mind for the last couple of months -- ever since it became fairly clear that there was no way she could make up her pledged delegate deficit, after her campaign explicitly said that that was all that mattered. In my more cynical moments, I think she & the former President are willing to do & say whatever they have to to get back to the Oval Office, but then I come back to this: it's difficult for me to imagine that the candidate who failed to see beyond Super Tuesday, the candidate who -- as shortstop points out -- has already seen a small handful of firewalls pass her by, yet with no better chance of securing the nomination -- the candidate who's run into to the red not once, but twice, simply doesn't have the capacity to see as far ahead 2012.

She deeply & honestly believes that she's the best candidate among the three remaining. She probably believes with equal depth & honesty that Obama is puffed up & bound to stumble in the general, leaving Democrats out of the White House for at least four more years. And, implausible as it may seem, she probably still thinks she can still win -- if not via the pledged delegate count, then definitely by superdelegates. If her campaign has shown me anything, though, it's that she's simply incapable of preparing for the near future -- let alone the future that's going to be happening four years from now. And that's just one of the reasons I don't think she's the best candidate.

Apparently the supporters of Sen. Obama want Sen. Clinton to give the nomination to their candidate. I do wish these people would get it through their heads that Sen. Obama is ahead. He has not won the nomination because he does not have, and cannot get, 2024 delegate votes before the convention. Don't you think it would be nice if he actually won it? I can easily imagine the outraged screams if the situation were reversed...
It would also be nice if the supporters of Sen. Obama would actually look at how conventions operate; the deal-making, compromising and backroom agreements that are an invariable part of any convention where the nominee is not already chosen prior to the opening day. Sen. Clinton cannot "steal" the nomination from Sen. Obama at the convention. The superdelegates won't vote en masse for HRC on the first ballot. Nor will they for Sen. Obama. Both candidates are going to have to convince them of their electability.
To get the nomination at the convention, HRC will have to convince some of the regular delegates, previously supporting Sen. Obama, to switch their votes to her. If she can do that, she will certainly have earned the nomination. At the same time, of course, Sen. Obama will be trying to do the very same with Sen. Clinton's delegates. A fair match, I'd say.
I do find fault with the level of pettiness the campaign seems to have sunk to on both sides in this primary season (How's that for "bipartisanship? Oh, wait, this is the same party, isn't it?). It certainly would be better if both candidates were focusing on what they want to accomplish as president and it couldn't hurt the tone of the blog entries (I hope).
As for "dividing" the Democratic Party; the only way for that to occur would be for the loser to refuse to campaign, wholeheartedly, for the winner. And that would truly be a suicidal move for either senator's future, irregardless of a Democratic or Republican win in November.

Well, hell yeah, I excuse everybody, including myself. After all, I warned everybody above that I'm no good at psychoanalysis. That, and the fact that all that evidence cited can be argued by honest people and, as a Florida voter, I don't exactly think I've been treated fairly.

The question is, not treated fairly by who? It wasn't the DNC who forced Florida to move up its primary, so how do you now square what was done? Ben Nelson I think has the only reasonable compromise in halving the FL delegation, which would have been wiser in retrospect to be sure. But you can't cross the same gator-infested river in the same place twice, obviously. FWIW, my parents live in Bradenton and are old enough now to have pretty much seen it all. And in Florida, that's seeing quite a lot. Carl Hiaasen will never, ever lack for material. (As a resident of Wisconsin myself, for once it was more fun to be voting in the frozen north this year.)

At least Kevin is starting to gently back away from his previous statements that there was no chance of a Hillary run in 2012. His current analysis strangely omits the most important factor - HILLARY REALLY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT. If she doesn't get the nomination, her next chance will be 2012. She will run if there is any possible chance of winning.

The following is from a Rassmussen poll showing how bad shape, currently, the democrats are in:

"The division in the Democratic Party is highlighted by the fact that just 71% of Democratic Primary voters now say they will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign. If Barack Obama is nominated, 64% of Democratic Primary voters are ready to vote for him. The way in which the Democratic Nomination is resolved will ultimately determine whether the nominee will enjoy stronger support from the party’s base.

Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 74% of Democrats nationwide, Obama by 67%. By way of comparison, McCain is viewed favorably by 83% of Republicans."

I think the idea that Hillary would be trying to make Obama lose in the general is just crazy.

brian, I've seen similar stats on how 5 out of 10 Obama supporters would have hesitations about supporting Clinton, while 7 out of 10 Clinton supporters would have trouble supporting Obama if he was the Democratic nominee. Truly, a concern. But to use that as a reason to back Hillary is nothing less than blackmail. The only, and I mean ONLY response to this sort of thing is for supporters of both candidates to say we'll support the DEMOCRAT against the REPUBLICAN in November. After eight years of Bush, that isn't to much to ask of any Democrat, period.

I mean, I don't think Hillary would do it...

Kevin, you give the Clintons too much credit. They do not have enough familiarity with reality at this point to be scheming. With the help of their consiglieri Penn, Wolfson, Davis, Carville et al., they have evaded any truths that threaten their fantasies. It's gone on for so many years that they are now in their own universe. That's extremely dangerous. But there's no need to worry about 2012, as a defeat this year will chase away their enablers and possibly their last shreds of dignity.

What an incredibly stupid conversation.
I blame Kevin. He knows better.

Dazir:

What is with all the "if Hillary wants to do what is best for the party, she should drop out" crap. This is a pernicious meme. Al Gore took that "advice" in 2000 and stopped contesting Florida.
I want a politician who will fight hard. Perhaps some of you remember Ross Perot in 1992, he offered a fresh perspective on things, but when the heat was turned up on him, he dropped out. Bill Clinton, in contrast, kept persevering, like Hillary is doing now; and indeed, I happen to find that one of their most endearing shared characteristics.

It's one thing to fight hard when you have a legitimate chance of winning. But in Hillary's case, she's losing, and her only chance to "win" is by stealing it....meanwhile McCain's numbers are improving and she's only hurting Obama's chances. Endearing??? Hardly.

But I don't think her strategy is to mortally wound Obama in the general so she can compete again in 2012...I think she's genuinely trying to steal the nomination this year, and if her attempt to do so mortally wounds Obama, so be it. Her desire to be the nominee takes precedence over any other consideration.

The nomination is her White Whale, and if she has to break the rules, drag Obama through the gutter, overrule the voters intent, and praise McCain to get it, she will do just that. Nothing else matters.

The evidence for Hillary "Don't call me Tonya" Clinton's mutual destruction strategy:

1. Unless she wins the trifecta (PA, IN, NC) she's done. And according to PPP, NC is a longshot. That;s why she keeps bringing up Rev. Wright.

2. She's using McCain's attack lines against Obama.

3. The "I told you so" might be coupled with Roe being overturned in a McCain administration, which would drive a lot of women to the Democrats.

4. McCain might be a one-termer or really struggle, so the Dems' chances would be better then than now.

The case against:

1. Be careful what you wish for. McCain is likely to be more popular than Bush, and may win two terms.

2. A lot of Democrats (more than just the Kossacks) have long memories and won't forgive and forget Hillary's sabotaging the 2008 race.

3. Her negatives will still be too high, and she'll be perceived as more polarizing than ever.

4. New faces will emerge (which will be for the best). I think the 2012 Democratic nominee (assuming McCain wins) will be a current or recent former governor. HRC will not be a dominant figure in the party.

5. Issues will change, and the economy could be humming again. I hope the Democrats will use their likely defeat in this this election to come
up with a credible foreign policy alternative based on diplomacy and alliances, and less on force.

On balance, I think Hillary is just kidding herself if she thinks she can come back in 2012. Who wants a 64 year old bitch?

I'm not entirely convinced by the whole Hillary-destroying-Obama-so-she-beats-President-McCain-in-2012 notion just yet. I think she's operating on autopilot. Her campaign has never had much of a strategy except calling in favors from old friends and fight! fight! fight! She knows she will probably win the next state contest and so she's feeling good.

It's the abyss after that, of course. That's when she'll have to start finding a way to exit gracefully, before the Democratic establishment turns against her. There is also a real problem in that millions of the people who voted for her are neither stupid nor shallow in their intense feelings about her, and are not going to want her to drop out just like that. She, and the party, need to find a way to incorporate her most bitter fans back into the party fold.

A lot of it will have to do with Obama's VP selection. Either way, I don't think it's happening till after Pennsylvania.

Hillary won't go quietly into the night. That's part of her appeal. If anything is going to make her stand down, it's going to be people who have creds and can swing outside the margins. People such as Edwards and Gore.

So if the current state is so desructive, and party unity is such a big deal, why haven't the people who could make a difference spoken up? (Although I don't expect it until after the Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina primaries.)

Methinks much of the ire directed against Clinton would be better directed to the people who stand a chance of putting an end to the squabble. If in fact those people think the squabble is hurting the party's chances in November, which is far from clear.

Either Edwards, Gore et. al. knows something we don't--undoubtedly some truth there--or they're playing the same politics many accuse Clinton of--also undoubtedly some truth there.

Hillary's minuscule chances are much smaller than most commentators allow -- even if Obama tanks so badly the party poohbahs decide he can't win, the animosity of Obama delegates would be so strong they would have to turn to Al Gore, not the kitchen sink thrower. Maybe Gore-Obama wouldn't be such a bad ticket after all?

Either Edwards, Gore et. al. knows something we don't--undoubtedly some truth there--or they're playing the same politics many accuse Clinton of--also undoubtedly some truth there.

So they don't think it's a big deal, or they're scared of the fallout should the candidate they endorse not get the nod? The first point seems questionable given their position.

The second point might be reasonable--after all they are veterans, and while the rank-and-file might be screaming the sky is falling, they may have a more sanguine view.

Or they see this as just the typical rough-and-tumble of politics--as insulting as that may seem to some--and they're waiting to see how the cards fall. (And I'd agree, that will have to wait until after the next round of primaries.)

This theory about Clinton trying to scuttle Obama so she can be president in 2012 is like stuff out of the comic books. I won't say it's impossible, but it would take a lot more to convince me of it than just "Matt Yglesias says this is what he thinks she wants to do."

2012 is worst case scenario for Clinton as to run for president that year she has to give up her Senate seat.

CLINTON REALLY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT. Her focus today is on 2008. She will do almost anything to get the nomination. If she fails, then she will focus on 2012 and do almost anything to get the nomination then. She will leave no fingerprints on the Obama loss.

I don't think Clinton is trying to scuttle Obama any more than any ambitious individual tries to knock down barriers to their objective. As mentioned above, her tenacious pursuit of her objective is part of her appeal.

Obama now stands between her and the Democratic 2008 nomination. She has to overcome that barrier to make it to the general election, and thus to POTUS. While going balls-out to knock down those barriers is worthy of applause, putting ambition ahead of the principles is not worthy of applause.

Thus the conundrum. Are we seeing ambition trump principles, or ambition in the service of those principles? Still hard to tell from this vantage.

Clinton's ambition trumps self respect, certainly:

Hell Has Officially Frozen Over

Well, Clinton's cozying up to Scaife is certainly an eye full. From Karen Rothmyer's brief attempt to interview him in '81:

"Mr. Scaife, could you explain why you give so much money to the New Right?"
"You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here."

Maybe he's mellowed a bit since.

2012 is worst case scenario for Clinton as to run for president that year she has to give up her Senate seat.

Well, Lieberman ran for the senate in 2000 while he was running for VP, though it has since become clear that there are a lot of Connecticuters who will vote for Lieberman in any one of his incarnations. Could Hillary go the same route in New York maybe? It wouldn't look good, but I somehow don't think that would stop her.

Lust for power has a terminus? Hillary's chance of winning the nomination is to destroy Obama. If she still fails to win the nomination, she will have most likely scuttled Obama's chances of winning. McCain, as president will be saddled with W's failures, and Hillary, now titular head of her party, will step forward to offer herself to save the country in 2012.

The blogsphere, Kevin included has lost it's mind.

It has become a giant roving Obama press machine. Of all the incidents reported this week against Hillary, none really matter.

Given that nearly half the party feels very strongly in support of Hillary, and that two of the largest states are being denied voting access to the primary, there are a lot of non-blogsphere voices that are not being represented in this continual anti-Hillary demonizing cycle.

While it's easy to lose sight of this as a pundit being on conference calls in and in 24/7 media stream, many many people on the web are not.

If the blogsphere continues to push the uncritical pro-Obama line and anti-Hillary line there will be many many people this fall who will both not use the blogsphere as a medium for news, and not vote.

It's not a matter of voting for McCain, it's a matter of being unable to endorse Obama or his proxies. And frankly I see no need to support a Hallelujah chorus on the web. If I wanted to do that I could join Red State.

I always find it funny when Hillary surrogates claim that they attack Obama because the Republicans would do it anyway. That, and their argument that Hillary would be immune to attack from Republicans because she has always been attacked anyway. I am sure Kafka could explain these to me.

Whether or not Hillary is playing for a chance at 2012 is sort'uv besides the point. The real trouble is trying to find a rational explanation for why Hillary remains in the race that doesn't involve her blackmailing Obama/the DNC or just taking the party down with her for vindictive revenge.

Kevin: But Democrats have never been very kindly disposed toward primary losers, and Hillary sure doesn't seem likely to be an exception. I'm putting my money on her being smart enough to know this. In fact, Occam's razor suggests that this is why she's waging such a tough campaign. Not because she thinks it will set her up for 2012, but because she knows perfectly well this is her last chance.

Either Hillary knows she has no realistic chance to win or she's delusional and can't face reality. If she's delusional, she has no business running for the highest office.

Assuming Hillary is rational and knows she cannot win, then please explain why she remains in the race. While you're at it, what's the rationale for why Hillary broke the cardinal rule of party politics and talked up a Republican opponent while trashing the presumptive nominee or her party by comparison. Explain why Hillary continues to trash Obama over Wright in interviews with, of all people, Ricahrd Scaife (the person who started and funded much of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy").

At best Hillary's chances of a nomination are premised on a combination of 1) subverting the popular vote and the pledged delegates; and 2) the threat of taking Obama down with her if he doesn't agree to share the ticket with her.

Hillary to Obama and the DNC: if you don't make me the nominee and settle for Obama as the VP, I'll continue to smear Obama and drain his resources until September, in which case McCain (who I am also talking up) will win the White House.

It doesn't get much more destructive and self-serving than that. Even Joe Lieberman looks like a more loyal Democrat than Hillary of late.

And if Hillary indeed has no chance of winning outright or sharing the ticket with Obama (Pelosi emphatically stated that a joint ticket was "impossible"), then the only reason for Hillary to remain in the race would be to sink Obama and the Democratic party's chances this election.

Those who don't think the Clintons would put their own self interests ahead of the party may not remember Bill's time in White House well enough. Bill's political triangulations helped him in the polls and win reelection, but the Democrats lost control of the House, Senate, had a net loss in governorships and state houses, the DNC fell apart, and they even hurt Gore's ability to raise money for his White House run by intercepting Gore fundraising in order to tap out donors for the Clinton defense fund first.

A Clinton threat to take down the Democratic party with them if they don't get their way isn't a hollow threat - they've already done it before. Just like the scorpion in the fable of the scorpion and turtle (or frog), it's just in their nature.

I think it is a case of too much koolaid. She (at least her most strident supporters) have repeated 'Obama can't win' so much they believe it deep in their souls. If it isn't Clinton, McCain automatically wins.

By that reasoning, defeating Obama by any means necessary is totally justified. They must save the Democratic party from itself, even if they have to mangle it in the process.

Of course, it is somewhat enlightening to look at the ever-changing litany or reasons Obama is fatally flawed... and the ever changing goalposts of a Clinton 'victory'. Almost rivals the 'thinking' behind BushCo's Iraq war 'reasons'. Confirmation bias gone wild is not nearly as fun as it sounds.

Maybe Obama should have just won more delegates and then we would have all been spared. If Obama doesn't go Republican on universal healthcare before Iowa and New Hampshire he would have wrapped this up a long time ago. Maybe those 86K former Republicans and 120K newly registered voters will make a difference in PA.

This is probably a dead thread at this point, but I've got to say this (even if it is to myself).

The 'experience' issue is so wrong for Clinton to be hyping.

First off, the media has long granted McCain an 'experience' free pass. No one short of a zombie Regan could win in Nov against McCain on (fake) 'experience'.

Secondly, she is doing great harm to herself by, how to put it, 'exaggerating'. The media has already caught this narrative and will breathlessly talk about how she might be a pathological liar should she go up against 'straight talk' McCain in the general. (Some of use remember 2000.)

Additionally, 'wife of' is not a very impressive accomplishment, even granting the far from conceded idea that she had some sort of extraordinary role in Bill Clinton's executive positions. It certainly doesn't play all that well against the 'self-made man' myth the GOP (and media) rolls out. [Note, McCain's father was an admiral... so there is some question just how self-made he is, not that the media will bring that up.]

Finally, and most damningly for those of us in the reality based community, it ignores (and distorts) Obama's actual resume. Look at his bio sometime. Just the biggest bullet points: civil rights lawyer, law professor, state senate, US senate. That is not 'just 2 years', even if you are just counting elected office.

I really don't get the dislike of Obama coming from a lot of Clinton supporters. That said, Obama supporters should keep in mind that Hillary Clinton isn't half as bad as the ratfuckers (sorry, but it is a term of art at this point) she has running her campaign.

Not so incidentally, Clinton's thrashing 'kitchen-sink' campaign (and the people running it) are a damn good reason not to support her for the nomination... The campaign itself is the most concrete audition we have of how a candidate will run the executive. Hell, it is normal for the campaign staff to get political appointments and literally run the executive.

All that said, I think Obama's campaign could safely (and potentially to their and our great benefit) just start running against McCain and ignore Clinton. Since Clinton's strategy at this point seems to hinge on somehow convincing the super delegates Obama can successfully campaign against McCain, Obama demonstrating she is wrong by actually doing it (at least starting to do it) would be a good primary strategy. Not going to happen, but I can dream.

You boys have realized your guy "O"is probably going to lose in the general and you are already trying to spin the loss by making it Hillary Clinton's fault. What a bunch of a-holes.

shortstop: Lumping you in with over the top Obama supporters never entered my mind. You've simply reached the point to where you don't give Hillary the benefit of the doubt with regard hurting the Democratic party, if I read you correctly.

My posts mean no more than what they say, in this case that speaking to Scaife or a Scaife owned newspaper is not an instance of behavior that makes me paranoid about Clinton.

Well, what is ironic is that even IF Obama loses the Presidential nomination this year he would most likely STILL run against her in 2012. That is a good possibility! And, what would serve Hillary right is if she is doing really dirty politics and wins the nomination and then loses the Presidency it would serve her and Bill right for thinking that they are entitled to the Presidency. I don't believe she can beat McCain! If she wants to keep on going until all of the states have cast their votes then so be it but we all know the math and even if she won all 10 states she still lags behind Obama!

Well, what is ironic is that even IF Obama loses the Presidential nomination this year he would most likely STILL run against her in 2012. That is a good possibility! And, what would serve Hillary right is if she is doing really dirty politics and wins the nomination and then loses the Presidency it would serve her and Bill right for thinking that they are entitled to the Presidency. I don't believe she can beat McCain! If she wants to keep on going until all of the states have cast their votes then so be it but we all know the math and even if she won all 10 states she still lags behind Obama!

Why is it an either/or question?

Personally I think Hillary is running hard for the nomination, just in case some unforeseen revelation (like Elliott Spitzer) renders Obama so clearly unelectable that the super delegates are forced to turn to her. Accordingly, she and her Rovian lackeys are shaking the trees trying to turn up or manufacture just such a crisis. If it works GREAT! If not, it still helps set her up for 2012.

Hillary is in a tricky position on this either way, since the narrative of "She's trying to destroy the Democratic party's chances in 2008 so she can run again in 2012" has been cemented into place.