Aye. My memories of the Clinton years are so sullied now.

Really silly stuff. What are you talking about?
You have been defending Hillary? Hahahahaha.

yes, I feel ashamed for having defended them so vigorously. And there were a lot of people more ambivalent than us to begin with!

Sadly so. I feel like were witnessing a modern Shakespearian tragedy. The Clintons could have done so much to elevate the country out of the Republican neocon abyss, but instead they've decided to become the very thing they should be fighting.

What! Why do you hate democracy, Kevin? The people in important states aren't finished voting!

Hillary = Ralph

Why do Democrats devour their own?

Do you or Atrios have ANY evidence that Clinton is distributing this story? Because Ambinder doesn't provide any.

I heard Ambinder and Klaus blow goats. Top men told me. How do I know? "Top men" told me.

When Yglesias joined the Atlantic, Ambinder was seen as a conservative. He gets linked to a lot these days for his anti-Clinton remarks. When did Ambinder become a progressive liberal? (*)

(*) I realize Kevin that since you live behind the Orange Curtain you may not actually know what a progressive liberal is.

Hell, talked to Scaife’s rag for a full 90 minutes with an A-to-Z “exclusive.�

I mean, if you talk to a winger like that, we're going to see an effing huge kitchen sink come out, as if we haven't already.

I think that people tend to oversell Obama's transformational potential. I think that we have been so starved for polished, linear, elevated language that we're calling Obama's speeches more profound than they perhaps might be. I think that the MSM has behaved absymally towards the Clintons. I thought the race-baiting charges against Bill Clinton and the Clinton campaign in January were overblown, and I was shocked that Kevin Drum acted like a delicate flower instead of a rational human being and THAT was what pushed him over to Obama.

BUT:

I was always clear eyed about Hillary. Centrist. DNC Democrat. Political gameplayer. No purist, by far.

BUT:

Richard Mellon Scaiife? Really? After all he did to you, your husband, and this country? Really? You're embracing him? You're allowing provocative stuff to be thrown about by his minions?

Flexible, real-world, pragmatic, whatever you want to call it. Some lines in the sand should be drawn SOMEWHERE.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign don't know what they're doing. And they don't care about the company they keep. And I'm going to be a delicate flower, here, too, what the hell.

Sayonara Hillary.

Sidling up to Scaife was galling. Channeling the American Spectator is insulting and, given the subject matter, irresponsible. There was no need for that Hillary. It seems ambition has trumped principle. Oh well.

I won't vote for her. Last week I would, but this week I won't, the way she's going. If it's McCain vs Clinton, I will vote for the best write-in candidate. She's a Republican at best. She will lose a lot of Democrats in November if this keeps up.

This really sucks, but I expected some decency from all the Democrats, but Hilary Clinton just doesn't have any.

I guess I'm unsure of what you need to defend Hillary for. Are you saying that Clinton should have just come straight out and said that his minister, his spiritual mentor, the man that brought him to Christ is going to make him unelectable?

At this point, it makes no difference if Obama or Clinton wins the nomination. Either will lose in November. Unbelievable.

She was just out classed by a younger, less experienced opponent, who came along at the right time doing things in the right way. We want real change not more of the same. Not just more of the same as Bush but more of the same as in the Clintons. Sure in comparison the Clinton years were great but we can do so much better, can't we? I know this guy can kick McCain's ass. He'll do a good job

Hillary's main problem, like McCain's, is her base core character; Down deep she is very flawed and it causes her to stumble and make bad mistakes.

I still don't know why she would not congratulate Obama when he wins a race; Obama always congratulates her when she wins and he loses. It's Politics 101: Don't show yourself to be a sore loser, which she constantly does. Goes to your core character.

Contemptible on the part of the Clinton team, but what bizarre criticism on its face. McPeak oversaw the strategic air planning of the first Gulf War, one of the most lopsidedly successful air wars in US history that utterly crippled one mortal enemy of Israel (Iraq), and may have helped facilitate peace with another (Jordan). If he's got a few problems with zionist settlement in the territories, maybe they should let it slide. They owe him a few.

McPeak is also one of the most esteemed military backers of Democratic candidates in recent years, and might have jumped over to Clinton's side if she had won the primary. That they would facilitate a right-wing smear on this guy is both unfair and unwise, and typical of the way Clinton is running her campaign. This is a contest for the nomination, NOT THE ELECTION. MCPEAK IS NOT YOUR ENEMY. Argh, I give up...

pssst. Senator Clinton. When Obama said we should appeal to Republicans, I'm not sure this is what he had in mind.

Maybe it is time for Hillary to drop from the democratic race. Let's watch Obama bask in the glory of a victory where he fought to deny Michigan and Florida the opportunity to vote. Let's see how a "community organizer" with "hope" and "change we can believe in" can win a general election. Hillary please drop out now so that the Obamites cannot continue to blame you for their candidates' weaknesses that will be exploited by the Republicans. Yes Hillary please drop out now so that we can see what Obama is really about.

As to wars and war planning I know nothing. But Israel owes McPeak something? First of all, the beef ain't with Israel, but supposedly with certain American Jews. Second, as I recall, Israel was being scudded frequently and Israel bowed to American pressure not to take out the scud sites themselves. In the meantime Israeli's were dying. Think what you would be demanding if some third country were bombing you. I'd say the loan was paid.

I am still genuinely curious if anyone has any details on why Clinton is being blamed for this. I have come to realize she did kill Vince Foster but call me naive, I also remember how a week or so ago we were all blaming her for darkening Obama's photograph (didn't happen), distributing a picture of Obama in African garb (didn't happen), and lots of other things that have proven unfounded.

Though she did kill Vince Foster.

Many in the party believe it is Clinton's turn, and that there is a kind of justice in that. I'm sympathetic.

But she is the definitive DLC candidate, a "sensible liberal hawk", with a history of voting for Republican issues so long she'd find a comfortable home in the moderate wing of that party.

And she's campaigning exactly to that form - and, one suspects, exactly like she'd govern.

Enough.

Uh, fake Al... Sully ain't a progressive. He's a, what, an offspring of a neoliberal and a confused paleoconservative?

Otherwise, the pic of Hillary and Scaife on my blog)... that pic should make every Dem superdelegate vote Obama.

SocraticGadfly, Sullivan is very progressive. He voted for Kerry in 2004 and has been pushing Obama for several years now and attacked Bush for even more years. Please learn your facts please.

Why would I need to read that Al? I've accepted she murdered Vince Foster in the Oval Office with the Lead Pipe. I just don't take Kevin's word that Atrios can trust Ambinder who says that Clinton is pushing this McPeak anti-semite thing.

By the way, IIRC the Scaife thing is OLD news and came out months ago when Scaife started mentioning that Bush was the suck and Scaife was wrong to have pushed him and started donating to Clinton. But it is good to dredge up old news and put it in the same old fishwrap.

Kevin,

I have to say, Josh is misrepresenting this. Scaife is THE power in pittsburg. You want to win the town you need his endorsement. I think it says more about Hillary's ability to deal with the powers that be, that she can actually work with people that hate her, than anything else.

Josh would like to see some type of conspiracy. But then the Obama campaign is nothing but a conspiracy breeding ground. Hillary has a very very strong case for the nomination, especially given that Team Obama has put their thumb on the scale to prevent FL and MI representation.

I think the blogsphere chorus having so quickly and completely jumping on the anti-Hillary wagon, will look back on this era as a huge mistake in the event of an Obama loss in November. What we are seeing is really the Judy Millerizing of the primary, much as the mainstream pushed the war, the blogsphere is Jake Tappering it's way to a bad call on Obama. The reality is nearly half the party wants Hillary, by eliminating our voice and not addressing any of our concerns with the untested "favored son" candidate, you are effectively guaranteeing a loss. I can say I won't be voting in November if Hillary is not on the top of the ticket. Maybe maybe you can win me back if she's on the bottom. Maybe.

I won't be voting for McCain, but I can tell you I won't be voting for Obama. I will also not be donating to TPM, Open Left, buying the Atlantic or the Monthly. I also will not be supporting any causes that advertise on these sites. Apparently none of these places has room for opposing views, and are currently proving they are no different than Red State. If the Democratic party is not capable of dealing with the reality of internal descent it's not a real party. Especially given the primary system which is designed to magnify such descent when it matters. The Reid and Pelosi who have done next to nothing about the war or key policies that mattered after we all worked so hard to put them back in the majority are now endorsing Obama, says all you need to know about the "change" he is offering.

But hey you don't need me to tell you. You guys aren't listening anyway at this point. Just the fact that so many people thinking fighting for the nomination is somehow a bad thing show just how much of the Obama framing you all have accepted. Sad really.

I had hoped the blogsphere was a place for rational discussion, where all sides were given consideration. Apparently the blogsphere like the Obama campaign is just so much window dressing.

What about when Bill Clinton went on RUSH frickin' LIMBAUGH before the Texas primary?

What about when Bill Clinton went on RUSH frickin' LIMBAUGH before the Texas primary?

THAT NEVER HAPPENED! If you believe that, you have been punked.

It just dawned on me, what HRC is up to. She wants the Veep nomination. Sure, some have considered and dismissed the possibility... but what they got wrong is that she is angling for the Veep nomination from the Republican Party. She knows she cannot win the Dem primary. She is tearing at Obama furiously, employing the ultimate GOP tactics, and she is charming NewsMax and Drudge and Scaife... I think there's just one theory that can explain all of it. She wants McCain/Clinton. If old Mac is a one termer, she can ascend in 2012 (or earlier!).

Well if your source is ATRIOS - you ABSOLUTELY must have it WRONG!

What's the matter - are you desperate for a little linky today? Did you owe the faux liberal crowd a some circle-jerky?

like always - atrios just stole this from another blog, but you have to promote those that would steal the proud traditions and values of real liberals...

What's next - more phony "fitzmas" crap from FDL?

Jerry,
I'm not sure whether this is proof enough for you, but apparently Ambinder said that the American Spectator story came to him from Phil Singer (of the Clinton campaign) in an on-the-record email.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/this_is_disgusting_clintons_mc.php

Thank you Joe, indeed, I trust Fallows a shitload more than any of the other people here that passed this along with asking Ambinder what he was talking about.

We'll see how this plays out.

Is it possible that Clinton has a deal with McCain to become his vice presidential running mate if she looses the Democratic nomination to Obama?

It fits the evidence; Praise McCain, bash Obama.

A McCain/Clinton ticket would be almost unbeatable. And don't forget, McCain was almost John Kerry's running mate.

The question is, of course, how would they reconcile their differences on Iraq policy? Come to think of it, how much difference do they really have? She had never flat out said that she would withdraw all of the troops. In fact, she indicated that she was willing to keep some troops in Iraq indefinitely. Actually, kind of sounds like McCain's policy, too.

Hmmmm.

aa

No problem, Jerry. Would have been nice if Ambinder had cited his source initially.

THAT NEVER HAPPENED! If you believe that, you have been punked.

'Fraid you've been punked. He was on the Rush Limbaugh show on March 4th the day of the Texas primary.

Here's a link to Rush Limbaugh's web site: You'll notice a big spot in the middle that says:
EIB Guest Host While Rush is Sick
Mark Davis of WBAP Dallas/Ft.Worth
"Mark interviews Bill Clinton (no, really)"

Here's a link to the
audio of Clinton's interview

Limbaugh, the American Spectator and Richard Mellon Scaife. Along with her endorsement from Ann Coulter, Hillary has now wrapped up the full endorsement of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.� Really should make us Democrats proud.

Still didn't happen that way JLTTravis.

If I had a picture of your wife on my desk, would you assume she was fucking me?

Bill Clinton was interviewed on ANOTHER radio show. The interviewer who was NOT Rush later on appeared on Rush's show as a guest host. As guest host he replayed his earlier interview with Clinton.

By the way, that mole on your wife's ass is adorable.

Question Authority JLTTravis.

First of all, the beef ain't with Israel, but supposedly with certain American Jews. Second, as I recall, Israel was being scudded frequently and Israel bowed to American pressure not to take out the scud sites themselves.

jerry, I'm not blaming Israel for the Spectator article about McPeak, or anything else really (though like McPeak, I'm not happy about settlements on the West Bank and wish for a US administration with a little more backbone in dealing with that). But Israel had a very good reason for not getting involved in the '91 war. There is no point starting a war with the entire arab world when you can rely on the international community to ground your worst enemy's army into dust for you. If anything, I'm defending Israel here. When it comes to interstate crises, Israel has often benefited from its caution more than its aggression. They could have responded to Egypt's attack in '73 with nuclear weapons (they had had them for a couple years by then), but instead helped Sadat use that war as a launchpad for the Camp David accords.

As much as Yitzak Shamir huffed and puffed about Israel's right to self defense, he knew a good thing when he saw it in 1991. As a result, Israel suffered only two civilian fatalities from those scuds. If only the US had that kind of restraint in '03, we'd be a lot better off.

HRC is pathetic. A month ago I would have had no problem voting for her, now I really believe she is unqualified and under no circumstances would I vote for her in the GE.

Before mentioning Scaife, I thought I'd check the previous comments to see what other people are saying Scaife-wise. Boy, there certainly are some ugly creeps here. "Jerry" and "Patience": Yuck. Probably getting paid off to be the slimiest sorts of trolls. Or do they do it gratis? Just as nice.

Scaife is a thug and a bully of low intelligence. It's amazing how much his money and the position it gives him takes off so much of his stink for so many people. Who can forget his vicious, snarling, misogynistic, totally uncalled-for comments to a journalist years ago?

No one has to suck up to Scaife, his Pittsburgh vanity paper, the American Spectator, or any of the other rightwing outlets.

Scaife doesn't remotely deserve to move among civilized people. His thuggish attacks on that young journalist, his thuggish attacks on his wife, his thuggish attacks on the Clintons.... Etc., etc. That depraved, imbecilic face of his. Not to put down handicapped people, but he has that look of incomprehension. And then he twists it into hatred as he howls at "libruls." Look at his slack-jawed face as he sits next to Clinton. He's practically drooling.

Clinton doesn't need to put up with him for an instant. You know, I hear that the state of Pennsylvania actually has OTHER newspapers and various media outlets that are known as "television stations." I imagine there are journalists at such places that would be willing to talk to Clinton. Not a lot of people know this, but she was First Lady of the United States at one point, and, god knows why, but that is actually impressive to some of the scribblers and ink-stained wretches and TV producers out there.

Typical Clinton always was a self serving sell out. Too bad Obama couldn't keep her ethical. It must have really hurt to lose. It's all about her not the issues or the country. Obama will kick McCain's ass too. Sorry ass political hacks.

I can't believe that John McCain is going to be our next President. Obama's support is about 65% Repugs who will never vote for him in the general.

Clinton doesn't need to put up with him for an instant.

What's really bizarre is that she's not on speaking terms with Martin Peretz because The New Republic published that Betsy McCaughey (lie-ridden) article that attacked her health care plan in 1994. BUT she'll have a nice chat when she goes through Pittsburgh with the guy who's been saying she killed an old friend since 1993 (and probably also had unkind things to say about her health care ideas, I'm guessing).

Exactly how much nasty shit do you need to write about Hillary before she starts liking you?

Kevin, I vehemently disagree. To expound on your silly cliche, Who exactly has voted Hillary off the island -- the circle jerk of self-annointed progressive punditry that comprises Matt Yglesias, Josh Marshall, Markos Moulitas, et al., plus the good folks at MSNBC?

Christ, she's only behind by about 120 fdelegates, and Obama isn't going to reach the 2,024 threshold without the superdelegates, and they're running practically dead-even in current polls. But no, that isn't good enough for you and atrios to consider allowing the contest to continue. You're getting all queasy, wobbly and squishy, and you're turning pussy, so she's got to go for the sake of your respective lower GI tracts.

Obama's behavior harkens back to his successful efforts back in 1996 to force Illinois State Sen. Alice Palmer off the Democratic primary ballot so that he could run for her seat unopposed. At this point, his is hardly a principled campaign.

Well, I'll say this, Kevin: If what you want to see happen does in fact occur, if the Democratic party leadership joins with the Obama campaign and the corporate-controlled media to force Mrs. Clinton aside before the remaining ten states and Puerto Rico have their say over the next seven weeks, I will resign forthwith my district position in the Hawaii Democratic Party, and Barack Obama will have forfeited his right to any further consideration on my part.

Couple this bullshit with the successful squelching of re-votes in Florida and Michigan and the subsequent disenfranchisement of those voters, and Obama's behavior runs so completely counter the basic tenets of American democracy that he's clearly abandoned any pretense at political principles for the sake of expediency.

Why is it perfectly all right for Sen. Obama’s supporters and / or spokepeople to bring up Monica Lewinsky’s infamous blue dress from ten years ago, or to compare Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy through some really twisted logical contortions — yet in your estimation, only Hillary Clinton’s campaign uses nefsarious campaign tactics?

Regarding the Rev. Wright controversy, quite frankly all too many of you Obama supporters posting here conveniently forget that Obama lied on March 15 about not being in attendance at church during the Rev. Wright's more vociferous and controversial sermons: "I had not heard him make such, what I consider to be objectionable remarks from the pulpit. Had I heard them while I was in church, I would have objected. Had that been the tenor of the church generally, I probably wouldn’t be a member of the church.'

The Illinois senator was forced to backpedal and admit otherwise three days later, in his March 18 speech: "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

But rather than hold Sen. Obama to account for misleading the public in such an off-hand manner, Kevin and most of the punditry overly lauded that speech as some sort of political "landmark", never bothering to consider the fact that had not the senator lied in the first place, that speech would never have been given.

(And for that matter, why was Sen. Obama, in a follow-up radio interview the next day, allowed to get away with labeling his maternal grandmother -- the same woman who willingly took him out in here in Honolulu and raised him for five years -- "your typical white person"? My head spins at the thought of the ensuing furor that would occur, were Mrs. Clinton to ever refer to her campaign chair Maggie Williams as "your typical black person.")

This nonsense has become so over the top that I swear to God -- I've said this before and it still applies -- if Obama was ever caught on videocamera pilfering the collection plates at church, half of the senator’s supporters would insist that he was merely making change, while the other half would praise his attendance at Sunday services.

Obama was completely disingenuous with both the public and the media for well over a year regarding his relationship with alleged influence peddler Tony Rezko, going so far in that South Carolina debate to falsely claim that he only worked 5 hours for the man, and further implying that he only did so because the law firm that employed him was under retainer. But of course, we now know otherwise, that Rezko raised approximately $250K for Obama and further spent over $500K to facilitate the Obama family’s purchase of that faux-Georgian mansion in Chicago’s Hyde Park district.

(I also find it interesting that many posters here conveniently ignore the fact that if Obama hadn’t first attempted to smear Mrs. Clinton during that same South Carolina debate about her service on the Wal-Mart board, her retort about his work with “slumlord Rezko� would not have been offered.)

Obama has also apparently misled the public about his state legislative records and accomplishments, claiming credit for legislation that we now know was literally taken away from his Democratic colleagues by State Senate President Emil Jones — who's apparently another piece of work whose dirty laundry we’ll undoubtedly learn about soon — and handed to Obama as sponsor, strictly for the purpose of bolstering the man’s political resume.

There’s a rather disturbing pattern clearly developing here, whereas Obama gets caught in embarrassing situations that belie his claim as the proponent of "new politics," and then proceeds to tell the press and the public just enough to get him over the next hill, and Kevin and practically everyone else in either the liberal blogosphere or on the cable news networks just swallow it like a bass striking a lure, and fawn over him like he's the Second Coming.

Further, for far too many of us who fancy ourselves as progressives and liberals, this entire primary campaign has been reduced to, and become predicated upon, one overarching theme: “How do we beat the bitch?�

It is literally to laugh, if it wasn’t so pathetic and sad.

You know what? After reviewing what I just wrote, I'm not going to wait to see what happens. I'm going to say here and now that I'm through with Obama - PERIOD.

You can now officially count me amongst the nearly 40% of Clinton supporters who are publicly declaring that they will not vote for Obama. His is a self-absorbed candidacy, rife with personal ambition and supercilious sanctimony but inherently lacking any true moral center, a man who will forever seek to keep ten yards in front of his own dust cloud. That's NOT what I want to see in my president, and I don't give a rat's ass if he DOES has a (D) behind his name. Fuck him.

And Kevin, I'm now going to say sayonara to your blog. I won't be posting here anymore. Thank you for allowing me the privilege of participating these past few years, from the time you held the moniker "Calpundit." It's become eminently clear that it's simply time for me to move on.

Aloha, everyone. Take care.

What I very much love about the American Left is their sheer childishness. Supra as exhibit one.

Well that's a cranky way to end the day, Donald. But you probably get better sunsets out there in Hawaii than I do here in Canberra, so I don't feel too sorry for you.

Plus I'm sure Hawaii doesn't forget its native sons. so you'll one day get to send your kids to President Barack H. Obama High School! You lucky son of a gun....

You can now officially count me amongst the nearly 40% of Clinton supporters who are publicly declaring that they will not vote for Obama.

Well, always hate to see someone we thought was a fellow progressive go, but the Democrats can't lose someone they so obviously never had.

This campaign season has certainly been bitter, but it has been fairly effective in separating the people truly committed to Democratic and progressive principles--and cognizant of the people whose lives those principles can save, transform and improve--from the folks motivated primarily by their own egos and tempers. Usually the latter group is self-aware enough to spare us the continual lectures about the need for everyone to pull together for either candidate in the fall, but in Donald's case it was always fairly clear that he held, as he does in so many things, a double standard for himself and others.

I suspect the Hawaii Democratic Party is already well aware of that, too. Good luck, Donald.

Donald is right. The palpable hatred of HRC, and the lack of scrutiny of Obama by the press is mind-boggling. And Donald is not alone. There are many of us who don't want to vote for Obama, because we don't feel that he has been vetted. It is more than foolish to alienate so many people by posting such ridiculous drivel, and Kevin, I am disappointed in you. Most of the time you are very fair. In this instance, you have joined the shrill chorus of left-wing bloggers clamoring for Hillary to go. It's sad, really.

And if the general election doesn't go your way, you shouldn't blame HRC. You in the blogosphere should blame yourselves, for pissing on so many democrats and driving them away.

Call me old fashioned, but even though Kevin has voted Hillary off the island, I think we still ought to, you know, think about holding the rest of the primaries and the convention and maybe even the general election.

Donald is right. The palpable hatred of HRC, and the lack of scrutiny of Obama by the press is mind-boggling.

idiocy. sheer idiocy.

Mollycoddle,

With the release of HRC's White House records, can you honestly say that she has been vetted?

I am now glad that the press is starting now to examine her claims of experience. She didn't need to talk about Tuzla but she did, and now it is coming back to bite her.

Donald of Hawaii,

It has been known that Barack Obama's mentor the leader of the Illinois state senate gave him bills that were previously crafted by others but Obama was responsible for working with Republicans and passing the bills which are completely different from the way they were written originally.

I'm getting tired of supporters of BOTH candidates saying they won't vote for the other if he or she is the nominee. I guess the Bush presidency wasn't so bad,and that you want third term. That is so brilliant.

Mollycoddle,

With the release of HRC's White House records, can you honestly say that she has been vetted?

I am now glad that the press is starting now to examine her claims of experience. She didn't need to talk about Tuzla but she did, and now it is coming back to bite her.

Donald of Hawaii,

It has been known that Barack Obama's mentor the leader of the Illinois state senate gave him bills that were previously crafted by others but Obama was responsible for working with Republicans and passing the bills which are completely different from the way they were written originally.

I'm getting tired of supporters of BOTH candidates saying they won't vote for the other if he or she is the nominee. I guess the Bush presidency wasn't so bad,and that you want third term. That is so brilliant.

"Donald is right. The palpable hatred of HRC, and the lack of scrutiny of Obama by the press is mind-boggling.

idiocy. sheer idiocy."

And this is a perfect example of the hubris and dismissive attitude displayed by so many. It reminds me of "You're either with us, or against us."

One thing I think we should all agree on, regardless of how we feel abut Wright, and indeed White, is that the word Clinton when used in the plural should be spelled "Clintons". Not "Clinton's."

And I say this as an Obama supporter.

I have long enjoyed Donald, especially when he wasn't mindlessly shilling for Clinton. Sadly his decision to jump this little ship is reflective of what Hillary is actively encouraging in the Democratic party.

Lets face it, the only way Hillary can win is to so utterly disqualify Obama the super delegates have no choice but to turn to her. She has turned to a kneecap Obama "strategy."

The sheer shortsightedness of Clinton's Tonya Harding strategy is stunning. In the process of kneecapping Obama she will learn what Tonya Harding learned, if you get caught doing the kneecapping you aren't going to be allowed to compete.

I don't mind letting everybody vote. Frankly, if Hillary were running an honorable campaign I would say go for it. In this environment, however, I agree with Kevin, it is time to vote Hillary off the island.

Kevin- you are suffering from a bit of self-delusion if you think you have been particularly fair to either Clintons. Your penchant for glossing over and minimizing any Obama gaffe is telling, too.

I think much of the supposed left wing blogoshere has lost its grip on political reality when it comes to the GE.

Obama supporters are insufferable, really. He gives a bullshit speech that doesn't answer any of the pertinent questions and then calls for national dialog on 'race'. Well, we'll see how honorable his intentions were with that speech when he has opportunity to start that dialogue in fall - I'm sure McCain and his people can hardly wait for him to step into that steaming pile of shit, cause independent voters will run from him like he had plague.

...............as if Rove ever ran an honorable campaign.

I dont think I have ever seen so many dupes on the left and the right. The right spit out every conservative candidate because they were internally divided and end up nominating liberal McCain who would increase spending and deficits while continuing the economic decline.

Heckuva Job!!

This is all very simple. Clinton is turning to the Republicans in order to try and get elected, because she knows damn well that they would much rather run against her than Obama. Furthermore, she's so full of herself that she thinks that she could still win. No way in hell is she going to get cross-overs from the other side like Obama.

Finally, what's with all of the crying about taking the ball and going home from Clinton supporters ? I was an Edwards supporter, but even I know that any Democrat is 10 times better than McCain. Sounds like some of you don't yet realize which side your bread's buttered on. Pretty amazing, considering the last 8 years.

I have to say, Josh is misrepresenting this. Scaife is THE power in pittsburg. You want to win the town you need his endorsement.

Uh, no. As a Pittsburgher I can tell you Dicky has virtually no local political power.

To win in Pittsburgh (and Hillary very well could) you have to have the support of the remnants of the old Democratic machine - and Hillary does.

But Scaife? His power is minimal here.

.

You want to win [Pittsburgh] you need [Scaife's] endorsement. I think it says more about Hillary's ability to deal with the powers that be, that she can actually work with people that hate her, than anything else.

Um, only someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about Pittsburgh politics would say such a stupid, stupid thing. Scaife has no power here, he's a recluse who doesn't talk to anyone and has no political power locally. Not to mention that Pittsburgh is a pretty deep shade of blue in PA. Scaife's Tribune is a 3rd rate paper that is practically given away for free.

Clinton has absolutely no reason to meet with Scaife or give any of his right-wing minions the time of day. These people hate her and she must know that no proud member of the VRWC is going to ever vote for her-- well, except in the primary to help weaken Obama.

I have NO IDEA why she met with Scaife, it shows a total tone-deafness and doesn't seem to serve a purpose.

[waves to zoe]

.

FYI, Kevin. It's not YOUR island.

I checked the Ambinder story on the Atrios click-through. It's entirely unsourced. Just sayin that the information may not have been put out there by disinterested parties, see?

Look, I support Obama, I think that if he can get elected he has the potential to be one of the greatest presidents in American history. I'm disgusted with Clinton's campaign. I think Penn represents the worst there is in Democratic politics, if he even is a Democrat at all. No campaign is perfect, but hers has veered into utter shame.

But. Let's take a clear-eyed look at McCain vs. Clinton. If McCain wins, America will attack Iran: if Clinton wins, the odds are reasonably good that we won't. McCain's level of militarism is beyond anything we've ever seen in a President: Clinton, despite the awful votes on Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman, doesn't begin to compare.

If McCain wins, there will be no useful healthcare reform. If Clinton wins, some of those 47 million people will probably get insured, and their kids will live instead of die. If McCain wins, by the end of his first term at least 7 out of 9 Supreme Court justices will be right-wing Republicans, so will 75-80% or more of the federal judges beneath him: you will be fighting the abortion wars in every state legislature for the rest of your life, while big business gets EVERYTHING they want. He wants to appoint Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court: she wrote that Social Security is unconstitutional! If Clinton wins, big business will get only SOME of what it wants: that leads to important differences in the lives of actual Americans. McCain's tax policies include massive cuts, 58% of which go to the top 1% of Americans. Clinton's are fundamentally different.

If McCain wins, what's left of the union movement will remain under relentless attack; if Clinton wins, with the union support she still retains, there's at least some chance that one or two union-friendly members might be appointed to the NLRB. That, too, translates into differences in the lives of hundreds of thousands -- potentially millions -- of regular people.

While McCain is the best Republican available on environmental issues, that's not saying much: Clinton would be better. With Clinton in office, minority voting rights are more likely to be protected; with McCain -- more Hans von Spakovskys.

Up and down the line, you wind up with a very different country depending on the outcome of that election. (Would Clinton disappoint me? Sure, but not a lot: as you can see, my expectations are not that high! Given that, she might even pleasantly surprise me once or twice.)

I was never thrilled with Sen. Clinton, and her recent campaign behavior has helped convince me to actively support and contribute to Obama. But if somehow she becomes my nominee, I will suck it up and vote for her. I imagine that somehow I will figure out how to walk precincts for her on election day. I have no idea how right now, because no doubt, she's an increasingly tough candidate for me to make a case for. But I will, based on the alternative. Some things you grit your teeth and do because they must be done: there is no choice.

So quickly people forget Bush vs. Gore. It friggin' matters.

Meantime, I'm going to go out and do what I can to prevent Clinton's nomination from coming to pass. That's what needs to be done right now.

Kevin- you are suffering from a bit of self-delusion if you think you have been particularly fair to either Clintons. Your penchant for glossing over and minimizing any Obama gaffe is telling, too.

Kevin (and I would wager most Obama supporters over 30) spent a decade or more glossing over, minimizing, and explaining away Clinton "gaffes". The Clintons used up their "benefit of the doubt" long, long ago. If you are surprised at the fact that Obama supporters extend Obama the benefit of the doubt, just remember how long they did so for the Clintons. Obama's still got plenty of credit left.

Obama'08

I notice that nobody -- not Kevin, and certainly not the Marc Ambinder -- manage to deal with the money quote from the article in American Spectator (and surely a significant part of the reason the article was distributed):

The interviewer asked McPeak: "So where's the problem [i.e., the problem with an approach to Israel more congenial to McPeak]? State? White House?"

McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

You see, saying that in public to someone in the press would be a good portion of why McPeak might be considered bigoted.

If you're going to go into a fainting spell over the distribution of an article from the right wing American Spectator (a rather odd emotional spasm for Kevin and Josh Marshall, given their own eagerness to use the Drudge Report to go in an equal and opposite fainting spell), you should at least deal with the underlying problem, and demonstrate that it's not real.

But I hardly expect that from A-list bloggers anymore. Which makes me wonder why I might ever have had different expectations.

Lambert -

James Fallows:

"(Marc has just confirmed to me that indeed the article came in an on-the-record email from Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign spokesman.)"

.

I wonder if Obama can win the general election without Clinton supporters?

He won't getting my vote and I see she won't be getting the vote of quite a number of Obama supporters blogging here.

So much Obama's empty promise to bring us all together. LOL!

It's becoming very obvious to all of us that we really don't like each other.

So be it.
It's probably best if we all seriously begin to plan on not winning the Presidency this year.

Donald (though you are not here, I guess): your posts so often struck me as blatantly hypocritical. It takes a lot of gall to stand by Clinton and accuse (falsely, I still think) others of lying---on the week of "I was under sniper fire in Bosnia" no less. Your other attacks fare no better. An exaggerated resume? 35-years exaggerated?

My favorite was how you so often decried the tone of Obama supporters, and then turned around and started calling people names.

I hope you're happier in your new haunts.

Obama'08

I have to agree with patience. Isn't think what democracy is all about? Don't we have to listen to both sides? Why is Hillary so vehemently criticized for doing everything she can to win and Obama is not seen in the same vein? WaPo's timeline showed they are virtually tied so why shouldn't she do whatever she needs to do? Why is it called a "tactic" when Hillary does something people don't like? While I admired Obama's race speech, was that not a "tactic" as well to get Wright off his back? What ever happened to all is fair in love, war and politics? Bill Clinton had to work with the House the impeached him!!

. Clinton is turning to the Republicans in order to try and get elected,
Worked for Lieberman.

Why shouldn't HRC meet with the TRIB? I feel the same as you about Scaife and his political power here. The city of PGH is solidly blue but that's not true of the suburbs.
Not that anything she says to the TRIB will gain her a single vote. Scaife hates the woman and he husband.

Donald, don't let the door hit ur arse on the way u fu*king hypocrite.

Oh whatever, Jan. You'll march right into that little voting both on 4 Nov 08 and vote for Obama. You can vote straight Democrat if it makes you happier. Eases the pain for you a little bit.

Please. I have a hard time taking the feeble threats of anyone who says they won't vote for candidate X because they supported candidate Y six months ago seriously. Christ, if I lived in a swing state even I'd vote for Hillary. I wouldn't brag about it to my kids or anything, but I'd still do it. If I didn't I was never a Democrat anyway, so why the hell should anyone on a Democratic-leaning internet forum care what I thought anyway?

It's becoming very obvious to all of us that we really don't like each other.

So be it.

It's probably best if we all seriously begin to plan on not winning the Presidency this year.

"So be it" is speaking for yourself--and excusing yourself when you really don't deserve one.

I don't find it necessary to like or be liked by all, most, many or any Clinton supporters to do what I need to do and vote for the Democratic candidate in November. And were I a Clinton supporter, I wouldn't be dumb enough to kid myself that I need to like or be liked by any of Obama's supporters.

Those who do have that need--well, like I said above, it's all about ego, tempers and control for some. But make no mistake, your abject selfishness will cost lives and significantly compromise the quality of life for millions. How fucked up does one have to be to think their emotions and hurt feelings are more important than that?

Well, I'll say this, Kevin: If what you want to see happen does in fact occur, if the Democratic party leadership joins with the Obama campaign and the corporate-controlled media to force Mrs. Clinton aside before the remaining ten states and Puerto Rico have their say over the next seven weeks, I will resign forthwith my district position in the Hawaii Democratic Party, and Barack Obama will have forfeited his right to any further consideration on my part.

Grow up.

Clearly democracy doesn't suit you.

Why do Democrats devour their own?

Nothing new about the US Democrats. The political principle everywhere in the world is "The Left always splinters." It would have been a Disney fantasy if Hillary were to capitulate smiling and raise Obama's arm in a victory salute.

It will be interesting if the principle here is put to good use or to destructive use. Competition can make you strong: I am hoping for that result.

Dagome- yes, you Obama supporters have done everything you possibly can to diminish the Clinton legacy of job creation and lifting people out of poverty, not to mention a surplus. And yet, how rarely do i read any Obama supporters railing about the terrible legacy of Reaganomics on steroids that Bush has imposed on us. Could it be they are just such "new" democrats they are more afraid of losing their republican base than half the democratic electorate in the GE?

Dagome- yes, you Obama supporters have done everything you possibly can to diminish the Clinton legacy of job creation and lifting people out of poverty, not to mention a surplus. And yet, how rarely do i read any Obama supporters railing about the terrible legacy of Reaganomics on steroids that Bush has imposed on us. Could it be they are just such "new" democrats they are more afraid of losing their republican base than half the democratic electorate in the GE?

FWIW, I also, an inveterate lurker, want to point out the mindlessly narcissistic behavior so eloquently delineated by "Donald" (whose posts up to now I've enjoyed immensely). It seems likely that right now passions are high, and when November rolls around folks will regain their equilibrium, but call it the 'Nader Syndrome,' that is, that certain seemingly committed folks on the left are committed to one thing and one thing only: themselves, and their precious self-concept. Say what you will about modern conservatism, they know how to take the long view. They can see past their own navels. It makes me wonder, sometimes, exactly how genuine someone like "Donald" really is, except I then mentally turn to the numerous folks I know and know of here in The People's Republic of Austin (Texas) who could easily be "Donald" but for putative geography. I’m not quite sure what to say here. So much of the shit being thrown in both directions (but seemingly more at Obama) is either made up or, more disturbingly, reality twisted beyond recognition by agitprop that, again, one wonders how much of it is genuinely the result of intra-party bickering, and how much might be something else.
Returning to Kevin’s post itself, I have to say that as a non-insider who also follows this stuff fairly closely, and as someone who has written and spoken repeatedly about the gutter shit treatment both Clintons have received at the hands of some of the slimiest political hacks in modern American politics, it does seem as though Ms. Clinton’s campaign has gone off the rails. If I understand Drum correctly, he’s not saying that Clinton must withdraw, only that he feels much as I do in that someone whose back I have covered repeatedly (in my own small, small way) has crossed the Rubicon and can no longer expect that sort of coverage, any more.
I think Ms. Clinton’s turn to the dark side has as much to do with learned behavior as anything else. When one’s back is against the wall, one always turns to ‘instinctual’ behaviors, which unsurprisingly will include the gutter tactics which, for better or worse, have year after year shaped one’s response to the world. Factor in the economic, emotional, and psychic investment Ms. Clinton has in her quest, and her truly loathsome campaign team (if, as Mark Penn does, one has irons in both of two fires, then one will, either consciously or unconsciously, always hedge one’s bets so as to maximize potential outcomes), then I don’t think much of the current bruhaha surprises. It is time, however, for a little adult action from those in a position to be so, namely, Pelosi and Reid, and I think we’ll see such movement fairly soon. And Kevin, I still love ya, poochie, no matter what anyone else says.

Democratic leaders are acting like the powerless warlods of a country colonized by Britain: more interested in power for themselves than in addressing the real problem. A sociologist well versed in dynamics of power structures in the colonial era might have been able to predict what would happen when a black man and a female are credible candidates for the Presidency: they would fight till all the justifications for their respective candidacies have been rendered invalid.

Democratic Party's internal descent

Great malapropism for this thread.

"It's becoming very obvious to all of us that we really don't like each other. So be it. It's probably best if we all seriously begin to plan on not winning the Presidency this year." - Jan

As an Obama supporter, I agree Jan. The Democratic "coalition" has always been weakly held together, and the recent primary has exposed the fractures more than ever.

I say bring on eight more years of Republican domination. Let's see how bad it can really get, especially after the Supreme Court gets even more conservative. Let's lose the right to abortion, consumer protections, privacy rights, and civil rights. Furthermore, let's attack Iran and bring back the draft in order to fight what is sure to be one of the nation's bloodiest wars ever.

And maybe at that point--years from now--there might be enough Democrats who are willing to drop ego and special interests in order to elect a Democratic President again. Then again, maybe not.

Why is anyone surprised that she cozied up to Scaife? This is the mother who decides to buddy up and share drinks with John McCain, the man who publicly made a horrible joke about her teenage daughter.

shortstop wrote:

"I don't find it necessary to like or be liked by all, most, many or any Clinton supporters to do what I need to do and vote for the Democratic candidate in November. And were I a Clinton supporter, I wouldn't be dumb enough to kid myself that I need to like or be liked by any of Obama's supporters.

Those who do have that need--well, like I said above, it's all about ego, tempers and control for some. But make no mistake, your abject selfishness will cost lives and significantly compromise the quality of life for millions. How fucked up does one have to be to think their emotions and hurt feelings are more important than that?"

This is not about being liked; nor is it about hurt feelings. It's about the media and democratic power brokers selecting a nominee. It's about ridiculous bias in articles across the board. It's about being told to toe the line or get out-often from those voting for the first or second time. It doesn't hurt my feelings; it alarms me. I see people being swept up in some sort of hazy movement about change. Change that most of them are unable to explain.

It sounds remarkably like what the neocons were telling people who opposed the war in Iraq. Get aboard or get out was the basic message.

I happen to agree with every Obama supporter who has said they will vote for Clinton if she is nominated. I am a Democrat first, and Obama supporter second. I came to Obama after my first choice (Edwards) dropped out. If Obama were to drop out I would support Hillary over McCain in a New York minute.

If you Clinton supporters haven't noticed McSame is really a double talking conservative old fool who makes Bush look like lover of peace and democracy. He promises a third Bush term on steroids. This country probably can't survive a third Bush term. I know all the issues most Clinton supporters hold dear can't. For the love of America abandon this Clinton cult of personality. Like Obama, she is just a candidate. A good candidate, but just a candidate.

...why McPeak might be considered bigoted.

franklyO:

You're resorting to the old neocon gambit: labelling critics of Israel's government anti-semitic. Shameful.

Clinton's stumbles as a candidate are of her own doing, you can't blame Obama for that. I'm amazed that so many of her supporters are now desperately drinking the wingnut kool-aid.

Hey Conrad's Ghost! I'm an Austinite as well, and concur that there is something like a "so be it" fatalism that exists within very liberal cities trapped in very conservative states. It's not entirely unhealthy, but it does tend towards the petulant and uninspiring. I knew so many Nader supporters in 2000 who just didn't give a damn about the election, so obsessed were they with the fantastic progressive world that would be available to them if Al Gore would just drop out. Or telling me how they thought a Bush presidency might be a good thing, because then people will see how bad capitalism really can get and the revolution will come that much sooner.

It would be a shame if half the Democratic party were to succumb to that mentality as well. There are still millions of people who don't have the free time to engage in internet wankfests like the rest of us because they work three jobs, or can't pay their phone bills for dial-up. Maybe they might like to get a slightly more sympathetic administration in power one day so that they too can proudly announce online that they will never vote for candidate x because of something someone on some website somewhere once said about candidate y! Then finally the party will be united at last!

Well, Unwilling to Sign Post at 10:02, you seem to be completely incapable of viewing this from anything but your own blindered perspective.

I'm telling you that either Clinton supporters or Obama supporters who flounce out, diva-like, as Donald did, are putting their own dearly loved self-images above the needs of not just the party, but also (since we know what a Democratic president and a more strongly Democratic Congress--is anybody else thinking about that?--will mean, and what another Republican presidency will entail) the nation.

You respond by bringing it back to your real and imagined grievances against the camp of the candidate you're not supporting as a justification for not voting Democratic.

Thanks for proving my point--you're not grown-up or other-focused enough for politics. May I suggest a knitting club or a bowling team composed of thoroughly like-minded individuals? You can probably handle that as long as the topic of conversation doesn't turn to anything controversial.

I am a Hillary fan who will enthusiastically support Obama this fall. However, I really dont understand why the pile on for Hillary when she has lost. Carefully consider: the more vicious and personal the attacks on Hillary and Bill, the more you really attack her supporters and suggest they are idiots or creeps for having supported her. If you cannot figure this out I cannot help you any more. Let it play itself out before you draw any hard and fast conclusions.

But one other and serious point: Kevin linked to a comment about Obama's Jewish support or lack thereof. With many Jewish friends I can tell you Obama does have a serious Jewish problem. It may make no difference in the fall, but you are putting your head in the sand to say it isnt there. It is. All of my Jewish friends plan to vote McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. They fear that Obama is sympathetic to the palestinians, they fear McPeak, his advisor, is speaking for Obama when he says that Israel must withdraw to pre 1967 borders, and they unanimously are opposed with every fiber of their being to Israel withdrawing to pre 1967 borders. And finally the Wright thing has hurt him. Somewhere along the line, maybe with Farrakhan, Jewish people became very suspicious of fire brand black pastors. I dont know a single Jewish person who is willing to overlook Wright.

So, there you are. I pass no judgments. I am just telling you what I see and hear. He has a Jewish problem that is real and possibly insurmountable. Why is it so awful for Hillary to point this out? Is there anything she has said or can say in support of her candidacy that someone wont consider racist or awful? I dont get it.

There are still millions of people who don't have the free time to engage in internet wankfests like the rest of us because they work three jobs, or can't pay their phone bills for dial-up. Maybe they might like to get a slightly more sympathetic administration in power one day so that they too can proudly announce online that they will never vote for candidate x because of something someone on some website somewhere once said about candidate y! Then finally the party will be united at last!

Damn straight. Damn damn damn straight.

Why is Hillary so vehemently criticized for doing everything she can to win and Obama is not seen in the same vein?

Because, with the math that we have now, Hillary can't win unless Obama somehow implodes.

If Hillary had a path to the nomination that didn't involve this option, I'd listen.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any persuasive arguments yet.

It sounds remarkably like what the neocons were telling people who opposed the war in Iraq. Get aboard or get out was the basic message.

Hillary got on board, Obama got out.

Nor do I buy this pitiful stuff about being forced to tow the line. Hillary was "the line". Edwards, Richardson and Obama were all relatively non-establishment. Hillary ran a poor, short-sighted campaign when she was ahead. Now she is running a poor, short-sighted one while behind. She's also the one who's relying most on "democratic power brokers" to switch the results of pledged delegates if they don't go her way.

You do not have to adopt the complete lack of self-reflection in the Clinton campaign as your own. Even if you support her.

Grip, people, get a.

Wow. Just wow. Watching the people around here go from reasonable progressives with common goals to frothing at the mouth intolerant fools has been just so much titillating drama! Yes, nothing like a day of reading Obama/Clinton posts on Kevin’s corner of the Lefty B-o’-Sphere!

For those that will not vote for Obama if Clinton does not get the nod, and to those that won't vote for Clinton if she does get the nod, then all I can say is a collective FO. Jesus people, it is time to pull your heads out of the collective back of your front.

If you need to hold your frickin nose when you pull the lever -- then just hold it. For fuck sake mary, it's about foreign policy and the Supreme Court. If anyone here truly thinks that the world will be in better shape with John McCain elected, then you really just might be too stupid to live. But you're not alone. And the Republicans will love love love to have ya on their team! Go red!

I know it's been said before, and that's because, well hey! It's true!

It is all about …

Stopping. The. Bleeding.

Have a nice day!

I am making a direct appeal to Donald to vote for Obama if Clinton does not win. I agree with a lot of things you say, but, as others have pointed out, Obama vs. McCain matters a lot, lives are at stake, our country's health and well-being are at stake.

As for the American Spectator, I will do what I think is prudent. I will wait for more information to come out. A Clinton supporter making a reference to an American Spectator article is one thing. Is the article being actively shopped by the Clinton campaign, as Yglesias implies? If so, is there other relevant infomation? I'm not inclined to fly off the handle just because the American Spectator is involved. If I were so inclined, I would be flying all the time given that Josh, Kevin, Atrios, et. al. reference right wing publications all the time.

becca: yes, you Obama supporters have done everything you possibly can to diminish the Clinton legacy of job creation and lifting people out of poverty, not to mention a surplus.

I don't recall dinging Clinton for job creation, or any of those things. But maybe I should! See, I have always argued that having Democrats in control is best. I like to think of the 90s as a time when Democrats accomplished a lot --- but apparently it was all Bill Clinton. Oh, wait, and Hillary, too! All the hard work by other Democrats (e.g., Richardson, Gore, Albright...) --- that didn't help at all. The two of them did it all on their own.

Snark aside, I do believe that Bill (let me repeat: Bill) deserves a lot of credit for his leadership in balancing the budget, etc. I just don't think he's the only one who is a capable leader. I happen to think Hillary is, too. And Obama, even more so.

And yet, how rarely do i read any Obama supporters railing about the terrible legacy of Reaganomics on steroids that Bush has imposed on us. Could it be they are just such "new" democrats they are more afraid of losing their republican base than half the democratic electorate in the GE?

This is pure slander, and childish. I deplore Bush and his policies as much as anyone.

You're resorting to the old neocon gambit: labelling critics of Israel's government anti-semitic. Shameful.

Again, you simply refuse to deal with the more inflammatory quote from McPeak. That is certainly one good reason that McPeak might be considered a really bad choice for his current position -- and his selection does Obama's judgment no good credit.

Certainly there are many Jews who would take his quote as suggesting anti-Semitism, and there seems to be little question in my mind that it was at the very best, extremely crude for someone in his elevated position as a top adviser of a Presidential candidate.

Jammer, it is one thing to point out problems a candidate might have with the Jewish constituency, but that article at the Spectator was so badly clipping McPeak's comments and trying to construe them in the worst way possible... Well, I don't know anything about McPeak or Obama's appeal to the Jewish population, but I have to assume the opposite of everything that article was going for.

Maybe I don't know enough about Merrill McPeak, but I can't figure out what the big deal about. Somebody from the Clinton campaign forwarded an article to Marc Ambinder (and presumably others) warning them about a problem with Merrill McPeak, along with an article from American Spectator (!).

Is the article unfair? Fine. But saying that Obama has a Jewish problem because of McPeak does not imply that Obama or McPeak is an anti-semite. It is just saying that Obama may have a problem nailing down the Jewish vote. I doubt that is true, but surely that is the kind of thing that happens in politics all the time.

I don't see this as something that is going to damage Obama in the general election. What is McCain going to say? The Clinton campaign forwarded an article blah blah blah?

Perhaps Atrios or Kevin can explain the outrage a little better to me.

and his selection does Obama's judgment no good credit.

Well, his "judgment" hasn't gotten anyone killed so far.

Ya'll ready to go with the snake lady meme now?

Let me get you warmed up:

Snake lady, snake lady, snake lady, snake lady
Snake lady, snake lady, snake lady, snake lady
Snake lady, snake lady, snake lady, snake lady
Snake lady, snake lady, snake lady, snake lady
Snake lady, snake lady, snake lady, snake lady
Snake lady, snake lady, snake lady, snake lady.

Y'all need to keep in mind that the controversial McPeak interview in question (the one where he says there are pro-Israel sentiments mainly in New York in Miami) was given in 2003, and came up briefly as a minor issue in the news after he vigorously supported John Kerry's candidacy the following year. From the one poll I saw a while ago, Kerry also didn't lose that much backing among Jewish Americans compared to 2000, the year their was a Jew on Al Gore's ticket.

So is the extended point of all this that Obama will do worse than Kerry did among Jews, or that John Kerry is ALSO an anti-semite?

This "gaffe" isn't so bad as the Bosnia one and the more recent criticism of Obama over Wright's endorsement. Those two mistakes are so bad, I've decided that it's unlikely Hillary would have willingly made them on her own. I think it's possible some kind of pressure was put on her. It's really as weird as when Hillary was accused of not leaving a waitress a tip, the waitress downplayed the story to the press, and then the next day or so the waitress was interviewd again and became an anti-Hillary partisan. That situation smacked of a Republican bribe. If anyone's pushing Hillary around and she can't fight back, I really deplore the state our nation has come to, and I shudder to think what kind of pressure might be put on her.

Well, his "judgment" hasn't gotten anyone killed so far.

When Obama gave his famous speech in Oct 2002 about the Iraq war, he was, at the time, representing one of the most liberal districts in all of the United States.

If Jeremiah Wright and his parishioners are any indication of what the sentiments toward the Iraq war were in the community in Obama's district, I simply don't see how Obama could NOT have come out against the war, especially since, as I gather, a number of other politicians from nearby Chicago districts also came out against it.

So, if his position might have been effectively dictated by his constituent demands, where's the judgment? Where's the courage?

::It's probably best if we all seriously begin to plan on not winning the Presidency this year.::

The Presidency was lost when Hillary hauled out her scorched-earth strategy after she lost all those primaries in February. John McCain will be our next President. and he will have Hillary Clinton to thank for it.

Me, I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
It's appropriately futile.

So, if his position might have been effectively dictated by his constituent demands, where's the judgment? Where's the courage?

Or, maybe applying a little Occam's razor here -- he was against the war.

Yes, if Hillary actively campaigns, the Obama people seem to take it personally. Meanwhile, they say all kinds of vile things about her, but that's OK.

frankly0, Obama could have said something slippery like "I oppose war, but our president must be given the authority to act in case Saddam does not comply with the weapons inspectors. In these troubled times, whatever our feelings towards injustices here in our own great nation, our foreign policy must not be held hostage by a middle eastern dictator."

Easy stuff. Good enough for Hillary, anyway. Or he could have gone the Jeremiah Wright, firebrand route and eaten the scenery if he wanted to show everyone he REALLY opposed the war and thought bush should be impeached for even thinking about it. Instead he gave a speech whose prudence has not aged a day since he uttered it. There was an entire selection of hedging and demogogary open to him, but in that speech he would have none of it.

Well, FINALLY, Mr. Drum. I'd given up hope you'd come over from the dark side and left your blog for quite some time. Nice to see that you got the message, albeit with a sledgehammer. Senator Clinton has come to the brink of causing irreparable damage in our Party due to her selfish desires. The truth hurts, but she doesn't know what that means.

I'm going to put things this way, since it seems like anger's high, and it's one of the reasons I've kind of shut off the blogs as far as primary season goes (what with it showing how real the Democratic circular firing squad continues to be).

I am leaning for Obama right now. For reasons I will not enumerate for the sake of brevity, he's the one that I feel would make the best president out of the three remaining candidates.

I WILL, however, vote for Clinton should she come back to get the nomination. That's because no matter how bad she might be, McCain is several degrees worse and even worse than her.

However, I will be holding my nose more and more in that situation considering the way things are progressing. More and more, Clinton is basing her campaign more and more on denigrating Obama. But even more galling, she's doing it in ways that almost actively promote both McCain and the Republican party and denigrate the Democrats. That's the problem I'm having with her more and more.

Or, maybe applying a little Occam's razor here -- he was against the war.

I never explain in politician by "judgment" what can easily be explained as pandering to his constituents. Frankly0's Razor.

You may apply this principle to Hillary as well.

frankly0: So, if his position might have been effectively dictated by his constituent demands, where's the judgment? Where's the courage?

Last time you threw out this massive mischaracterization (bone-crunching ignorance or straight-up lying? So hard to tell) of Illinois politics and the true risk of someone with Senate and possibly presidential aspirations saying what Obama did in 2002, you got beaten to a pulp. Sure you want to go there again?

I've often said that the Clinton camp doesn't seem to have learned anything over the course of this campaign, but you make them look like strategic geniuses, Frankie.

In my mind at least, it should be obvious to all at this point that neither Obama or Clinton can win in Nov on their own. Both names will need to be on the ballot to beat McCain.

Impossible, right? If so, drink a toast to President McCain a few months early and be done with it.

I agree with Donald and I am a loyal dem and a former Howard Dean delegate. There is no excuse for the vitriol being heaped on Clinton from all quarters. Like George McGovern says, it's easier to elect a black man than a woman in the U.S. and the hate that is spewed at Clinton shows this - it's accepted, whilst even the slightest hint of questioning of Obama is racism. Give me a break. If he had to take what is dished out to her, he'd absolutely wilt. And he will in the general and if he's elected because it ain't beanbag.

Like George McGovern says, it's easier to elect a black man than a woman in the U.S. and the hate that is spewed at Clinton shows this - it's accepted, whilst even the slightest hint of questioning of Obama is racism. Give me a break.

And here we go with the same old race to win the crown of "Most Disenfranchised". Give me a break, indeed.

Right after making the above post, I clicked over to TPM and saw...

The new Gallup poll says that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Hillary and a whopping 28% of Hillary supporters would abandon Obama for McCain.

Whoever wins those numbers will flatten out considerably. But starting from such high numbers is a big, big problem.

Democrats on both sides of this fight need to decide whether they want to win or not in Nov. Without both on the ticket, it's all over already.

Yeah, "beaten to pulp" -- in your delusions of grandeur, shortstop.

Really if you have an argument, just make it, if you can possibly muster up the ability to do the logic?

It is simple fact that at the time that Obama came up with his speech, he was, in fact, nothing more than a State legislator. He didn't even form an exploratory committee to run for the US Senate until 2003. It was the purest speculation for him whether he would be successful in running for the Senate. And given that his first hurdle was to win the Democratic nomination, there was no reason to believe that it would not be a good differentiator for him in that quest.

And, again, if anyone wants to get a sense of the political climate in Obama's own district toward the possibility of a war with Iraq, just take a listen to Wright's sermons. I had no idea just how virulently anti-war that community might be until I heard those sermons. Insofar as Wright represents anything like the sentiments of the community Obama served, doing anything short of coming out in opposition (especially as other politicians in Chicago were also coming out against the war, apparently) would likely have done him real harm in the one job he knew he wanted to keep, no matter what.

Obama simply did the safest possible thing.

If the Clintons really were so evil, as Obama worshipers like to think, then why didn't they bring up Rev Wright's hate speech in South Carolina when Obama's campaign was tarring President Clinton as a racist?
Or better yet, why not before the Iowa caucuses?
If they had, Obama would have been the first Dem to drop out of the race.
I kinda wish they had. America would be better off if they did. We barely survived 8 years of one overly ambitious, rank amateur.

Really if you have an argument, just make it, if you can possibly muster up the ability to do the logic?

It's been made, of course; it's all there in the thread, your brian- and ex-liberal-like attempts to disingenuously keep asking the same question notwithstanding. You failed spectacularly to make your case and have been corrected repeatedly on this point by multiple people.

You are not arguing in good faith--you're trolling now, pal. I refer you to the title of this thread.

Reading this thread is truly depressing...never has the concept of the narcissism of small differences been better illustrated.

"Why is Hillary so vehemently criticized for doing everything she can to win and Obama is not seen in the same vein? WaPo's timeline showed they are virtually tied so why shouldn't she do whatever she needs to do? Why is it called a "tactic" when Hillary does something people don't like? While I admired Obama's race speech, was that not a "tactic" as well to get Wright off his back? What ever happened to all is fair in love, war and politics? Bill Clinton had to work with the House the impeached him!!"

All isn't, and can't be, fair. We're entitled to notice, especially when tactics are damaging the home team. Clinton's are damaging the home team, indeed sometimes appear to be designed to do so.

The tactics used by the House in the Clinton impeachment were despicable, and the fact that fellow Democrats weighed in (at some risk) to defend Bill Clinton, and the fact that Americans generally noticed how rotten they were, was key to his survival. We're entitled to notice tactics, and entitled to take them into account, as we do in all areas of life.

The candidates aren't tied. Not to get all NCAA on you, but there are 5 minutes left, and Hillary is down 90-78. Her center has 4 fouls. The other team is deeper, and their best players, while banged on, are more rested. Her point guard is unnerved and turning the ball over.

The comeback isn't impossible, but it is very unlikely. Obama has a 120 pledged delegate lead, which is highly unlikely even under unfavorable scenarios to shrink below 100. There are approximatly 250 supers who haven't stated a preference (320 if you count as yet unnamed supers). So she has to obtain the votes of 220 of the supers to prevail, in an environment where she has lost on every metric except the Calvin-ball rules occasionally spawned by Penn, et al, most recently Bayh's 'winner take all electoral vote' metric, whatever that meant. Not creamed, but lost.

As the Clinton campaign has repeated reminded us, the supers are independent. They are politicians. Especially given the early 'inevitability' thing, most who were Clinton loyalists would have committed early. There's simply no way she gets 2/3 of them in this circumstance, no matter what she does.

One other thing; Obama is going to win NC. The 'tie' poll a couple of weeks ago notwithstanding (yesterday's poll showed an Obama 21 point lead), all the major Democratic candidates for state office (Gov, US Senate) have come out for Obama, including most recently Beverly Perdue, who many expected might endorse Clinton. They're looking at all sorts of internal polling, and nobody wants to be left off the bandwagon. My bet is Obama by a dozen.

Barring a meteor strike to the head, as someone said, it's all but over.

From frankly0:

So, if his position might have been effectively dictated by his constituent demands, where's the judgment? Where's the courage?

Nice try, unfortunately for you Obama went on to say WHY he opposed it and described pretty accurately the future quagmire we are now in.

So you can say it didn't show political courage all you want, but what you can't say is that he didn't show good judgment.

I understand Hillary supporters tend to view EVERYTHING through a cynical political lens. Hell, you've had to bend over backwards trying to explain why Hillary voted for the war (fyi, she made a political calculation and didn't want to be on the wrong side of a "winning" war). But sometimes people oppose wars simply because they don't think it's a good idea, and in Obama's case, we have the video of his speech telling you exactly why he opposed it.

Even more incredible though, you're actually making a good case AGAINST Hillary, because you are either saying that she caved in to her pro-war constituency, or that she showed "courage" by voting against the wishes of her constituency. In either case, why in the hell would anyone want someone like that to be President? She either had no spine, or incredible arrogance and poor judgment. And since I don't think her spine is an issue, it must be incredible arrogance and poor judgment.....which sounds a lot like our current administration. No thanks.

But keeping bring up Iraq, it's a winning issue for Hillary. The more people are reminded of it, the better she will do, trust me....

shortstop,

There's no argument in that thread that meets my point, least of all from you.

But by all means continue acting like a blowhard who has, in some mysterious way understood only by themselves, "refuted" a point once upon a time in some other thread.

"Democrats on both sides of this fight need to decide whether they want to win or not in Nov. Without both on the ticket, it's all over already."

Both Obama and Clinton should drop out now to avoid a divisive general election that would destroy the nation.

Donald, you wimped out, and sold out at the same time. I thought, at the very least, you were an honest Democratic supporter who would have supported whomever the Democrat nominee was once he had been "forged by fire" or whatever was the case. Now, even though the math was inevitably against your candidate, your whining about bias and unfair play has you refusing to vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is. For two candidates who are quite similar, yet for one to have won so handedly and weathered his storms as well as a pro, was not enough for you and your supporters.

Like you said to other posters, this is politics, not beanbag. What makes me angry was that you think that Obama was handed this candidacy so easily. How dare you try to get away with that convenient thinking, and try to belittle his hard-fought victories. Your candidate is an old politician who was not prepared to handle the candidacy of a modern politician, who weathered the very charges hurled against him and was able to handle them professionally. That you did not see this as professional political ju-jitsu, and instead saw this as whining speaks more for you than your target. I thought you would have been proud, now that Obama had been "forged through fire", but no, you revealed your blatant hypocrisy towards his candidacy.

That, and your obvious talking-points to try and rectify her candidacy by having her try and win unfairly is all the more reason to give you more skepticism. When Obama is elected, it's going to be a brave new state of affairs, too bad you'll be stuck in the old one. It's not that she was voted off the island, and more like her chances of winning have gotten so small that she is risking putting the party through turmoil to try and grasp that pathetically-low possibility that she could win. It's over, and like many relationships, she should get up and move on with herself. Your cries of double-standards attributed towards the Obama campaign regarding ill communications owe themselves more to your misunderstandings than any real slight. In addition to that, you gloss over the very things you charge the Obama camp of doing (the NAFTA thing), and have yet to confront those realities, thought I know what you'll be saying ("she's been vetted", and all that nonsense. She's never been vetted enough, and is a flawed candidate). Translation: Obama is the best candidate for the general, and you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Goodbye, and good riddance. You twisted your way into an excuse to justify your real reasons for not supporting Obama, so go home happy with yourself.

Frankly-zero,

It's not just one speech. Obama campaigned as an anti-war candidate all throughout his U.S. Senate campaign in 2003 and 2004. Here's a link to sources:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/14/155912/671

Poor Frank. You do have Clinton's nasty habit of pretending that if you keep ignoring reality, it doesn't exist. I imagine that's going to come as a shock to you if you ever become capable of understanding what has happened these past few months.

drinkof: Great post. But tell me why you think it's over after NC, if HRC still refuses to get off the stage--and she will. Do you mean you think the supers will converge at that point?

Things we must never do:
1) Mention that Miami and New York City have large Jewish populations
2) Discuss that it might be lucky this year, after civil rights, and advancements in sports and music and entertainment for a biracial middle class to upper middle class man who grew up in Hawaii and not in South Central LA, and who by all accounts never had any sort of "African American Cadence" to be running in a race this time around identifying as black, mentioning that he was brought up in a single parent home (until the age of four), and picking up an African American Cadence when speaking.

I hope Obama is as capable and progressive as you folks claim. Based on what I've read, and examining his actual votes, I'm just not sure.

I find the claim that Hillary is running to Republican's interesting, interesting in the same way we used to call Rovian.

It's not Hillary saying she is bipartisan, post-partisan. It's not Hillary getting endorsements from Republicans around the country. It's not Hillary encouraging Republicans to reregister as Democrats to change the Party.

I'm trying to figure out what all those Republicans are doing, do they honestly see Obama as being bipartisan and postpartisan? Do they honestly feel that partisanship has ruined the country? Do they see Obama as a crypto conservative? Or do they see Obama as some sort of pushover who in the name of bipartisanship will take the country even more to the right.

Hillary running to Republicans? You guys are drinking from Rove's spout.

In the meantime, it's lovely seeing Donald trashed by so many. It helps me understand why Conservatives have a point when they claim, there is no hate like liberal hate.

Better yet, it helps me understand the praise Obama got for sticking with his priest, because Democrats were known for not sticking together.

I hope you guys are enjoying your new friends: Ambinder, Sullivan, Vandenhei, Drudge, .... Apparently I was mistaken to have believed you folks when you called them hacks.

Nice try, unfortunately for you Obama went on to say WHY he opposed it and described pretty accurately the future quagmire we are now in.

There was nothing remarkable in the reasons he trotted out, that I can see. They were the fairly standard reasons that many anti-war activists expressed against the war. Getting into a quagmire was indeed the standard argument against wars since the days of Vietnam.

Indeed, here is, in full, the only explanation I can see in Obama's speech for the downside of the Iraq war:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.

Now, unless there's something I missed, this is all that Obama had to say that would justify this claim that he had such incredible foresight: this very short passage in a rather short speech. Those two sentences would seem to constitute, pretty much in full, the core argument upon which Obama's supposedly remarkable judgment is based.

Now I'd like to see someone please explain to me which of the reasons Obama produces here is original to him, and was not emphasized by any number of other people expressing opposition to the Iraq war.

If you can't make out the argument, where's the basis for believing in Obama's allegedly impressive judgment?

I've read that there were 12 Democrats in the Illinois delegation at the time of the war resolution vote (11 in the House and Durbin in the Senate). Of the 12, 9 voted against the Resolution (Durbin in the Senate and and 8 of the House Democrats). From that, you would think it was not all that risky in Illinois to vote against it. So, Obama position was hardly unique in Illinois.

@Jerry: Well, it is Hillary getting votes via Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, and it is Hillary saying McCain would make a good President. And speaking of changing the party, it was the administration in which Hillary claims to have been Undersecretary for Bosnian Sniper Fire that gave us gems like the Defense of Marriage Act.

I agree with you, though, about the diatribes against Donald. He was a lively and interesting participant in our discussions. He seems to have gone way around the bend about Hillary recently, but he's not alone in that. I for one am sorry that Donald felt the need to say "Aloha, Cruel World."

I hope you guys are enjoying your new friends: Ambinder, Sullivan, Vandenhei, Drudge, .... Apparently I was mistaken to have believed you folks when you called them hacks.

And don't forget Hannity, Scaife, Limbaugh, the American Spectator, et al.

Oh wait...

In today’s Rasmussen Reports Hillary and Obama are tied at 45% each. Also, 22% want Obama to drop out of the race and 22% want Hillary to drop out. This race is intensely tight. But, the most interesting statistic is that McCain now beats Obama 51% to 41%. It makes me wonder if Obama is losing the support of white men. This probably has his campaign staff in a panic.

In our local newspaper yesterday a retired U.S. Air Force officer wrote a letter to the editor that was titled, Obama is a scary guy. He said that he was terrified of Obama, because his “speak first, cover-it-up-later� mode of operation could lead to an international incident and he does not want him to be the commander in chief. He also cited Obama’s words--typical white person--twice.

Today’s paper had five letters in rebuttal. Only one mentioned Hillary and three attacked Bush and/or McCain. It looks more and more likely that Obama would never win the general election.

Mr. Toad, we all know that Hillary is not getting votes from Limbaugh. Bill did not appear on Limbaugh's show. Limbaugh is encouraging his listeners to vote for Hillary, but not because he is endorsing Hillary. Some studies show that his affect has been meaningless. And some very strong Clinton supporters have gone on TV suggesting Limbaugh is aiding and abetting voter fraud.

Tell me more about how you know that Hillary is appeasing and pandering to Hannity and Ingraham. Try to make it more substantial than they are pulling a Limbaugh and/or are still pissed with John McCain.

jackohearts,

It does seem that Durbin at least -- the other Democratic Senator from Illinois -- was also an early opponent of the war.

So we are supposed to believe that it took great courage for Obama to come out against the war when running for the US Senate?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Jerry, way to distort my comments. I never said Bill appeared on Limbaugh's show or that Hillary was appeasing or pandering to Hannity or Ingraham. I also never said Limbaugh was endorsing Hillary. Rebutting points that your opponent never made is called the straw man fallacy.

I did say that Hillary is getting votes from Republicans since Limbaugh and Ingraham started their faux campaign for her. In fact, I'll back that up. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/republican_influence/

I agree with you that Obama got a higher percentage of the Republican votes in the earlier Democratic primaries. But notice that since the beginning of Dittoheads for Hillary, two numbers have gone up substantially: the percentage of Democratic primary voters who identify themselves in exit polls as Republicans, and the percentage of those voters who cast ballots for Clinton.

So I'll see your "some studies show . . ." and raise you some actual data.

Whatcha got?

"It's not Hillary getting endorsements from Republicans around the country"

Um, actually, yes it is, particularly recently. In the past few major contests, she surpassed Obama in the Republican vote.

"There was nothing remarkable in the reasons he trotted out, that I can see."

Other than the fact that these arguments were not being advanced by the Democratic politicians in the House and Senate? Other than the fact that they demonstrate judgment that Hillary Clinton notably lacked?

It looks more and more likely that Obama would never win the general election.

Well, no one has a crystal ball, so we really don’t know that.

As a relevant aside, I have been following both the Iowa Electronic Markets and In Trade, both of which are real-money prediction markets/futures markets. IEM is a non-profit operated by the University of Iowa, In Trade is a profit based organization located in Dublin.

I have been following both for a number of years now. The political election results have been highly accurate. Particularly when they have been compared with traditional polling, such as the one that you site. And this isn’t just my opinion. There have been academic studies done on this.

Anyway, both the IEM and In Trade have the Democratic nominee winning the ’08 Presidential election by odds of 60 to 40. And they have been consistently at or around these numbers for some while now.

Can things change? Of course. But right now, “odds� are for the Democratic nominee to win the presidential election. Even with all of the mudslinging going on and the polls jumping all over the place.

"Really if you have an argument, just make it, if you can possibly muster up the ability to do the logic?"

Dear heart, you're the one making the assertions; it's up to you to support them. Thus far, you have entirely failed to do so. You have simply responded with more assertions, pretending that this somehow proves something or other.

Hilary should bow out, why? It's not like the majority of Democrats think she should. In fact, a majority think she shouldn't, according Rasmussen. So suck it up.

Mr. Toad, if you weren't making those arguments, I apologize, because they were made up thread.

But I think there is a huge difference between Obama suggesting that Republicans vote in Democratic primaries to "change your party" and Limbug telling his listeners to vote for Hillary to screw McCain and because he is worried about Obama.

Careful everyone. It looks like this thread is going from rage-filled freaking out in the begging to a reasonable discussion. With facts and figures being cited even. Beware!

I wonder, whether or not Limbaugh has something else in mind, other than not seeing McCain in office? He, Limbaugh, is probably unaware of what his "endorsement" of HRC is going to do in the minds of some democrats. He's just not that smart is he?

Hello All,

I am sure I can’t stop all this bloodletting, but I feel I need to have my say. Please stop with all this! I am just a middle aged mom of 2 kids struggling to get by. I feel like the Dems are going to kill our chances in November with all this turmoil.

There are so many out there who desperately need a Dem in the White House.

For example, I can barely afford health care for my family. We are paying $10k in premiums a year for a crappy 80/20 plan. There are so many of us out there who need the Dems to be in power to fix things. Things are bad out there. My son had a severe asthma attack a month ago. And for 1/100th of a second, my husband and I hesitated to call 911 when he stopped breathing. Why did we pause? Because we knew it was going to cost us a lot of money to make that call. Someone has to do something about this!! The Republicans could not possibly care less about people like me and my family. Our only hope is for the Dems to win.

I am sure this hasn’t helped much, if at all, but it feels good to get it out. And, yes, I have been wracked with guilt for that 1/100th second pause.

Please don’t vote for McCain or a third party candidate in November. Please don‘t let us down like that. We need help.

So, if his position might have been effectively dictated by his constituent demands, where's the judgment? Where's the courage? -- frankly0, 11:20 a.m.

Well, if -- as you seem to be suggesting -- Obama secretly supported Bush's call for a war in Iraq, but instead chose to squash that desire in order to satisfy peacenik constituents like Jeremiah Wright & his parishioners, then he wouldn't be displaying much beyond a crass political judgment. But unless you have some magical window into Obama's thought processes at that time, or unless you can provide us with a link that supports your contention, then there simply isn't any reason to question his opposition to the decision to invade Iraq, and you're simply talking out of your ass. But you already know this, as your use of qualifiers ("if" and "might") demonstrates.

frankly0 I have read your Hillary's shit doesn't stink stuff all over the web. You clearly don't have another job. You must be doing all your posting on somebody's tab. How much is Hillary's campaign paying you for your efforts.

I have to admit I admire your utter devotion to the woman. Hell, if she strangled a small child while singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic on national television you would rush to her defense by claiming it was an Obama plot. You are simply amazing. frankly, it's time to give it a rest.

Sorry Junebug, but speculating on a politicians motives, any politician, is not unreasonable. Contrary to popular belief Senator Obama is a politician subject to political thinking. Does this mean he didn't have a sincere belief in is opposition to the war, I haven't a clue. But it isn't unreasonable of folks to consider whether or not the beliefs of a politicians constituency might of had some influence on that persons position either.

I guess I'm missing something. I mean, I read the article you linked to, which (before it got to the Israel stuff, which was mild for its ilk) quoted McSomebody as saying some of the viler slurs I've seen against both Clintons - and yet the problem is that the Clinton campaign would hit back against this stuff? And that's such a filthy tactic that you can no longer tolerate the Clinton campaign? But Kevin, you have never given Senator Clinton more than a tepid defense against the more extreme Clinton-hate. You're going to give up even mild protesting against the excesses of the Obamanation crazies over this?

You have always distinguished the haters from more nuanced Obama critics, and you have given Senator Obama more than a small share of favorable mention. So I am under no illusion that you are a Clinton supporter. Plus I am a Clinton supporter and I don't defend some of the stuff that goes on. But I can't understand how you would make this thing your line in the sand. I think you are losing your battle to keep some shreds of objectivity. Objectivity, defined as dispassionate political judgment, is a rare commodity these days and will be missed.

The base reality after early June is that Obama will be our nominee. He will be our nominee because he came out ahead in a very hard fought campaign.
By June we will probably be back to 50+ troops KIA each month in Iraq..The "surge" did not work.
The Dow will be around 11,000. Gas will be $4.00.
There will probably be nothing more on Obama than now.
Those that swear they will not vote for Obama in Nov. will have a change of mind if not of heart.
...however this is not June..so let's continue to fire away.

I guess I'm missing something. I mean, I read the article you linked to, which (before it got to the Israel stuff, which was mild for its ilk) quoted McSomebody as saying some of the viler slurs I've seen against both Clintons - and yet the problem is that the Clinton campaign would hit back against this stuff? And that's such a filthy tactic that you can no longer tolerate the Clinton campaign? But Kevin, you have never given Senator Clinton more than a tepid defense against the more extreme Clinton-hate. You're going to give up even mild protesting against the excesses of the Obamanation crazies over this?

You have always distinguished the haters from more nuanced Obama critics, and you have given Senator Obama more than a small share of favorable mention. So I am under no illusion that you are a Clinton supporter. Plus I am a Clinton supporter and I don't defend some of the stuff that goes on. But I can't understand how you would make this thing your line in the sand. I think you are losing your battle to keep some shreds of objectivity. Objectivity, defined as dispassionate political judgment, is a rare commodity these days and will be missed.

Just to clarify my above comment, and to lend a little more stability to the proceedings, I will actively support with my time, effort, and vote whomever gets the nod as Democratic candidate for president. Even if it ain't John Edwards. There is no excuse other than petulant self absorption to do otherwise.

Just remember Obamatrons that when you vote her off the island you have voted off a great many who support her. As evidenced by his half-assed healthcare program he just doesn't have the sack to do anything than give a stirring talk. Thus, for the first time since I cast my first vote for Fred Harris in 1976 I won't consider pulling the lever for Obama. But he needn't worry ... its probably just cause I'm a typical white person.
Hello - President McCain

Even if it ain't John Edwards.

Don't give up hope, Con! If we go to a brokered convention, I ain't ruling anything out.

Except Al Gore. Despite all the fevered fantasies taking place across the nation, I don't think Al's going to be our deus ex machina. Much more likely the supers will pull the curtain in June.

mww,

Please read Rabble's comment above. Then please reconsider your self-centered statement that it's better for a Republican to be president than the Democrat you don't prefer.

Unless you actually are a Republican, as I suspect. In that case, by all means stand pat.

Toad

"its probably just cause I'm a typical white person. Hello - President McCain"

Nah, it's because you're a typical asshole.

Toad:

...please reconsider your self-centered statement that it's better for a Republican to be president than the Democrat you don't prefer. Unless you actually are a Republican, as I suspect. In that case, by all means stand pat.

I'm in with that.

Groupies who say it is Hillary or they are voting in the goopers, are no different than the groupies who say it is Obama or they are voting in the repugs.

I don't post here much anymore but my suggestion is thread regulars treat both such parties equally: As trolls.

It really is very simple:
We must put our country and our culture ahead of our cult of personality.

Crikey...

100 years of war?
A guy who opposed the ERA?
A guy who opposed MLK's holiday?

Instead of Hillary or Barack?
STFU.

Please stop with all this! I am just a middle aged mom of 2 kids struggling to get by. I feel like the Dems are going to kill our chances in November with all this turmoil.

Thank you for the reality check.

There's really nothing to worry about, as long as Obama wins. Remember, the Senator himself said, he could get all of Hillary's voters, but she couldn't get all of his. I wonder what he was implying about his supporters there? He wasn't really saying his supporters were willing to cut their noses off to spite their face was he? Or maybe, it was just that HRC supporters were more rational and understand what Rabble seems to know, any dem is better than the alternative, Hmm, something to ponder I suppose.

This just keeps getting sadder and sadder. It is too bad for Hillary that her campaign is eroding, but much of it is her own doing. I say this as someone who came out in favor of Hillary earlier in the year. There have been some missteps and statements that have caused me to seriously reconsider. Not many people have the chance to change a vote, but as a delegate in a caucus state where the process is only at the county level to date, this is a path that is open to me. It looks like a path of reason at this point.

What has bothered me the most is her near endorsement of McCain over Obama relative to the CiC statement she made/repeated a few weeks ago. We are supposed to be Democrats first and foremost. I have been saying while supporting Clinton all along that I would vote for Obama if he were the nominee in the end. That Hillary would flatly state that she and McCain meet a CiC standard, where Obama does not (please don't get into a semantics game over the exact words she chose -- we all got the message), what does that say about her support for democrats over republicans - about how she values the party - and what does that say about her standards when McCain doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the players in the middle east?

I think the rewritten history about the Bosnia adventure was the deciding milestone though. Falsification of credentials just leaps right out of that one. If she were to be the nominee, any cred she might claim about being calm under fire next to McCain's POW experiences would look foolish when "under fire" is trotted out to be greeted by an 8 year old girl with your own teenage daughter next to you.

Anyway, I bear her no vitriolic animus nor any to those who remain supportive of her, but really, enough is enough.

You guys are drinking from Rove's spout.

That's just gross.

Sorry Junebug, but speculating on a politicians motives, any politician, is not unreasonable. Contrary to popular belief Senator Obama is a politician subject to political thinking. Does this mean he didn't have a sincere belief in is opposition to the war, I haven't a clue. But it isn't unreasonable of folks to consider whether or not the beliefs of a politicians constituency might of had some influence on that persons position either.

Political motivations are certainly worth considering, Radix, but there simply isn't anything sinister about personal beliefs motivating political stances, just as there isn't anything sinister about sharing the same convictions as your constituents. Presumably, that's one of the reasons they elected him. The point isn't that Obama was courageous in staking the position he did (as frankly0 would have us believe Obama supporters are claiming), or that Clinton wasn't, for staking hers. The point is that he was right on this, and she wasn't. Not only that, but he was right for exactly the reasons he stated at the time (and which frankly0 cited at 12:53 p.m.):

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda."

Of course, frankly0's argument against Obama changes on this score, and his complaint no longer has to do with political expediency; rather, he decries the lack of originality in Obama's argument. Apparently, the point is that sound judgment requires that you have to be the first, or only, person to hold a particular position.

Barrack and Hillary are like DLC twins competing to be the first one out of the womb.

"and yet the problem is that the Clinton campaign would hit back against this stuff?"

No, the problem is that the Clinton campaign will promulgate this stuff. She ain't hitting back against it; she's forwarding it to all and sundry as a deliberate campaign tactic.

Junebug:

"Political motivations are certainly worth considering, Radix, but there simply isn't anything sinister about personal beliefs motivating political stances, just as there isn't anything sinister about sharing the same convictions as your constituents."

Agreed. However, what was being speculated on, was whether or not the Senator's anti-war stance was really his belief or was it a politically motivated belief? As I stated, I haven't a clue one way or the other. But it isn't an unreasonable line of speculation.

I would also like to add for the record, that even if my first choice John Edwards is not the nominee, I will vote for the Dem candidate, whether Obama or Clinton.

Cheers.

Remember, the Senator himself said, he could get all of Hillary's voters, but she couldn't get all of his. I wonder what he was implying about his supporters there? He wasn't really saying his supporters were willing to cut their noses off to spite their face was he? Or maybe, it was just that HRC supporters were more rational and understand what Rabble seems to know, any dem is better than the alternative, Hmm, something to ponder I suppose.

No. His point was that exit polling in many of the state primaries indicates that he's been getting the votes of independents & even Republicans, voters who are far less likely to pull the lever for Clinton in a general election -- particularly if her opponent is McCain, who, for reasons I find baffling, appeals to middle-of-the-road voters.

If you're genuinely concerned about Democrats crossing over to vote for McCain in the general, though, you should be more worried about Clinton voters.

The bottom line, though, is that a fair number of both Obama & Clinton partisans need to grow up and recognize the fact that this isn't about the next 4-8 years. A President McCain means Supreme Court Justices Alberto Gonzales & J. Michael Luttig. It means the 5-4 split we've been bemoaning for these last however many years becomes an insurmountable 7-2 split for at least another generation. It means, at the very least, the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It means a radical departure from what we've assumed the Constitution means up until now. Wrap your brains around those facts, people. This isn't about your childish wants & tantrums if you don't get your way. This is about your children & grandchildren. And that's just one of the reasons I'm not going to miss Donald's sorry, petulant, & whiny ass around this comment section.

My apologies for providing a bogus link to anyone who's still reading. My previous link should have taken you here.

Junebug, how does your post refute, in any way, what I said in my post? In fact, your post seems to confirm my post, not all of Obama's supporters have the best interest of the nation at heart, those best interests being a dem in the WH. Am I wrong here?

Hardly. Don't lay it at the feet of just Obama supporters, Radix. Click the link above and you'll see that even more of Clinton's supporters are willing to throw the election to McCain if they don't get their way. Between 1/4 & 1/3 of them, in fact. Tell me again -- which of the candidates has been tarnished with the "cult of personality" tag?

I understand the numbers you're referring to Junebug, but as Senator Obama has already said, there's no cause to worry in that direction, he can get all those votes, you can't ignore that statement, he owns it. So that brings us full circle, back to the radix, as it were.

And yes, that's why I chose my name, for moments just like these. :)

Clinton's supporters are willing to throw the election to McCain

Damn, don't like the taste of your own medicine? Remember the "black demographic of the Democratic electorate will not vote for Hillary if she 'steals' the election" blackmail you've been throwing around?

You Obamazooids are spoiled little children, and deserved to be treated as such. I won't leave like Donald, I'll stay and ridicule the brats...

So the fact that 28% of Clinton's supporters are comfortable with a McCain administration reflects poorly on Obama because...?

Elmo,

Not to defend people who won't vote for the eventual Democratic nominee -- and I, for one, will -- but surely there's a difference between someone who wins because he won the popular vote (primaries and caucuses, thank you) and the pledged delegates and the most states (which is what Obama has done so far and probably will continue to do), and someone who wins because she persuaded a few party insiders to vote for her. Isn't there?

[Cue Evan Bayh...]

So elmo, if Obamab does win the nomination, you will vote for him, right?

elmo, everytime you join a thread, the discussion turns to crap. i guess it makes you happy to be such an asshole!

"So the fact that 28% of Clinton's supporters are comfortable with a McCain administration reflects poorly on Obama because...?"

Because Senator Obama has already said that isn't true, he can get all of the Hillary votes, his words, not mine. Or are you implying he was overstating in an effort to win super delegates?

Remember the "black demographic of the Democratic electorate will not vote for Hillary if she 'steals' the election" blackmail you've been throwing around?

It's not that I don't remember it. It's that I never said it. What I have said, though, is that if Obama wins in pledged delegates, states won, & the popular vote, yet Clinton gets the nomination, the Democratic Party will, in effect, be turning away African-American voters & the 18-30 demographic that's turned out so wildly in elections thus far. And it will cripple Democrats at the national level for years to come. But I wouldn't expect you to follow that, elmo, you fucking twit.

Yes, I will still vote for him, chubby checks.

God, why don't you just strike me down, then?

Someone tell me, please, how Obama is going to win Florida in the general?

Because Senator Obama has already said that isn't true, he can get all of the Hillary votes, his words, not mine. Or are you implying he was overstating in an effort to win super delegates?

Other than pointing out that Obama gave that 28% of Clinton supporters more credit than they deserve, what's your point, Radix?

From Frankly0:

There was nothing remarkable in the reasons he trotted out, that I can see. They were the fairly standard reasons that many anti-war activists expressed against the war. Getting into a quagmire was indeed the standard argument against wars since the days of Vietnam.
Now, unless there's something I missed, this is all that Obama had to say that would justify this claim that he had such incredible foresight

Yes, you did miss something. Here's an interview he did in 2002. Take particular note of what he says around the 1:20 mark where he emphasizes the challenges we might face after the fall of Saddam, and the worry that Iraq would splinter along Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish lines. This recognition of the challenges facing a post-Saddam Iraq, and in particular regarding Iraq's ethnic groups, was spot on, and few people, whether they were pro-war or against it, were airing that concern at the time.

Now show me a quote where Hillary, or really any other Congressman or Senator, prior to the invasion, demonstrated such prescience.

I like elmo. I no longer support Sen. Clinton, though.

Go, go, go, Junebug!

I like elmo. I no longer support I like elmo. I no longer support Sen. Clinton, though.

I like Senator Clinton. I no longer support elmo, though.

If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain

...versus 19% of Obama backers.

Who are the spoiled, again? She lost. She had the clear advantage going in for years, and she still lost. She tried to tussle with Obama once it got into the "fun part", and she still lost. She couldn't successfully manage her campaign, and she still lost. She could have left with some dignity, but now she has hurt her standing.

That a young upstart could up-end an entrenched political machine is not luck, it's the American way.

Someone tell me, please, how Obama is going to win Florida in the general?

Um, who says he needs to?

You can flail around screaming "She lost!" "Give it up!" all you want. You still don't get desert, little Boorring, till you get 2025.

Um, who says he needs to?

Ok, you roll with that, junebug.

elmo: 1 ninth grade civics class (grade: solid c minus) + 1 case of shiner bock + lingering problem with impulse control

Ok, you rule with that, junebug.

It's worth pointing out that Clinton, who's assumed to win FL by the very same outfit that has Obama losing FL, still has Obama beating McCain by a wider margin than Clinton would in their projections. (Compare the Obama & Clinton tallies.) All the usual caveats apply -- it's early, anything can happen,... etc. -- but the point is that an Obama candidacy puts more states in play than does a Clinton candidacy. This is especially significant in a year where Democrats have much deeper pockets than Republicans, and especially since McCain seems to be running on fumes, financially speaking. He'll be forced to play defense in all kinds of states that used to be safe bets for Republicans. This will also have an effect on down ticket elections, and could wind up threatening the Republican stranglehold on Senate filibusters. Wouldn't that be nice?

Wouldn't that be nice?

Yes, but that's just hope.

"no name", you forgot the pinner joints I bought with my lunch money...

junebug,
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Florida voters. The people tend to show up at general election time, more than other states, and they seem to be able to swing both ways! Despite their advanced age.
Florida is important to the democratic party in the general election. Don't insult them.

Still waiting for the dill pickle sucking bimbo.

"Other than pointing out that Obama gave that 28% of Clinton supporters more credit than they deserve, what's your point, Radix?"
Ah Junebug, I had such high hopes for you too. Couldn't just concede Obama overstated could you? Nope, you had to resort to denigration, perhaps you can now see why that number is so high on the Clinton side.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Florida voters. The people tend to show up at general election time, more than other states, and they seem to be able to swing both ways! Despite their advanced age.
Florida is important to the democratic party in the general election. Don't insult them. -- optical weenie

Don't get your knickers in a bunch. Nobody's suggesting that Obama wouldn't, or shouldn't, contest FL. My point is that the road to Washington does not necessarily go through FL, a fact borne out by the fact that -- by my count, anyway -- that state has voted Democratic in the Presidential election just twice in the last 40 years. (Although I suppose it's three times, if you count 2000. Problem is, they didn't.)

Nope, you had to resort to denigration, perhaps you can now see why that number is still high on the Clinton side. -- Radix

You bet I'm denigrating any Democrat -- Obamatron or Clintonista -- who's not going to vote for the eventual nominee in the general. If that describes you, tough shit.

Talk about getting your knickers in a bunch Junebug, boy howdy. And as far describing my position, how would you know what that is?

Oh, Junie, you can't get most hard-core Clinton supporters to look at either the SUSA state-by-state matchups or the Rasmussen state-by-state matchups. I've been trying for days. Simply bleating, "But Hillary won New York and California so Obama will lose these in the general" and "Do you really think we're going to take Wyoming and Mississippi in the general?" and "We can't win without Florida" is stretching a lot of folks' attention spans. Look at the total inability to grasp what you said about Florida and how the electoral college works in different ways for Clinton and Obama (but better for Obama). They just don't get it because they don't want to look at it--they haven't even clicked on your link before spouting untutored nonsense about "insulting Florida." (And one of these people is always claiming she's a scientist and loves her some facts! It's embarrassing.)

Most of them not only don't understand the downticket effect and how Obama polls far ahead in almost every state with a competitive Senate race; they wouldn't recognize a 50-state strategy (either Obama's or the DNC's) if they fell over it. They have no idea that Obama's grassroots orgs in every state are set to positively influence the whole ticket, while Hillary has nothing in all but a few states. All they want is Hillary on the ticket in November and they haven't even thought about a Democratic Congress, much less state and local races. Talk about a cult of personality!

It's very fortunate that the supers do understand these things, do look at the numbers and will make their decision accordingly.

I don't want to hear any whining about this admittedly rude-ass post being insufficient bridge-building to the Clinton camp, either. You guys drop the sloganeering, do your goddamn homework and study some numbers--including the actual likelihood of Clinton winning this thing even with superdelegates. Hint: Despite what the Clinton press releases are saying, it's extremely small even if she can convince a majority of supers to come over to her.

Well, if anyone didn't understand my post, that's probably because the syntax was ham-fisted. (I must remember -- preview is my friend.)

I just wish there were some way to talk my fellow Democrats in off the ledge, shortstop. I dunno. Maybe we all go through this anger & bitterness when our respective candidates lose the nominating process, but we get over it by the time the general rolls around. It happened so much earlier in 2004, so I was over my disappointment that it wasn't Dean by the time November came. (And let's not kid ourselves. The only way I'd ever vote for Bush is if he were to run against Cheney.) Teh internets weren't as heavily populated in 2000, and they weren't even around to provide us the luxury of bitching at one another all day and night back in 1992, so I guess I don't really have much of a clue as to whether or not the primary season bitterness this year is any greater in its intensity. I'm just so frickin' tired of this "There's no way I'll vote for X in November." And that goes for everyone who's been saying it.

You, defending Hillary Clinton? Ha! With friends like you, Kevin, who needs enemies?

It's remarkable that you held out for so long, buy you've at last succumbed to CDS. For whatever reason it tends to strike at youngish males who have inflated senses of their own brilliance and who feel it is their role in life to demonize and mock a middle-aged woman who's won the votes of millions of Americans, and done much more for the public than they could ever dream.

I guess I don't really have much of a clue as to whether or not the primary season bitterness this year is any greater in its intensity.

Definitely worse this year--than in 2004, anyway. I don't even remember much crap in 2000, since we were all on board with Gore.

I'm just so frickin' tired of this "There's no way I'll vote for X in November." And that goes for everyone who's been saying it.

I could almost--almost--see it if we were coming off eight peaceful and prosperous years, and people were able to maintain the illusion that the next chief of state doesn't matter that much. But after two terms of Bushco's insane warmongering, Constitutional dismemberment, rampant abuse of executive power without accountability, assault on the middle class and lower-income Americans, potshots at the environment/science/education/health care, on and on and on, how much evidence do people need that voting for a Democrat matters?

Ugh.

It's official: Kevin Drum has become a complete hack. As for McPeak -- when you smear others one should expect to be treated similarly. I will vote for either Clinton or Obama this fall, but I will not be reading this site any longer.

You guys drop the sloganeering, do your goddamn homework and study some numbers--

At least shorty is sexy when she is politicaneering.

I understand numbers, dear. However, you conveniently leave out a few very important variables. Like...time!

But what the hell, I'll ask anyway. Do you stake your name on these polls? Just wondering...

It's official: Kevin Drum has become a complete hack.

Kevin just goes wherever the strongest wind blows. Always has. But at least he keeps an open blog, which is better than most.

Phil Singer emailed an American Spectator article about Merrill McPeak to Marc Ambinder.

And???

For those of you who think being against the war in 2002 wasn't a big deal - like hell. I was working at the time for one of the Members who voted against the resolution, and it was damn hard. Paul Wellstone voted against it (RIP) and he was *behind* in MN - it was a huge risk, and he did it anyway (the WashPost did a whole story on his decision).
I don't support Hillary because when it comes to doing what's right vs doing what's in her perceived political best interest, we can't trust her.
Her behavior throughout this campaign has borne that out in spades.

Let's reprise an argument upthread.

Here are two sentences from Obama's Iraq war speech:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I said of them:

There was nothing remarkable in the reasons he trotted out, that I can see.

PaulB said,

Other than the fact that these arguments were not being advanced by the Democratic politicians in the House and Senate?

Here are arguments from the floor of the Senate on the vote for AUMF:

From Barbara Boxer:

What will the casualties be? How much will it cost? How long will we have to stay there? What happens afterward? What is the impact in the region? Will Saddam Hussein use his weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield against our people? And what protections do they have?

From Lincoln Chafee (yes, he was a kind of Republican, but he opposed the AUMF):

And I have also listened carefully to other world leaders. Of particular concern to me is the position of those nations that share a border with Iraq--Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. The Turkish Prime Minister said, ``We're trying to dissuade the American Administration from a military operation.'' King Abdullah of Jordan said, ``In all the years I have been in the international community, everybody is saying this is a bad idea. Our concern is . . . that a miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil.'' The Kuwaiti Defense Minister said, ``Kuwait will participate in the military campaign to remove the Iraqi regime only if the military action came in compliance with a United Nations' resolution.'' This in Kuwait, a country that suffered greatly under the hands of the Iraqi dictator. These nations share a border with Iraq. Their leaders know their neighborhood and they have expressed their opposition to our intervention at this time. I would also like to quote President Mubarak of Egypt who said, ``If you strike Iraq . . . not one Arab leader will be able to control the angry outburst of the masses.'' And President Mussharaf of Pakistan said, ``this will have very negative repercussions around the Islamic world.'' I believe it is wise to heed the concerns of our friends. And our friends are telling us that we are ratcheting up the hatred.n two nations' recent elections the defining issues seemingly revolved around American arrogance. The fact that the two countries are our friends, Germany and Brazil, is alarming. What Congress does this week and next will have very serious implications throughout the world. Demagogues in the Middle East and elsewhere are surely ready and willing to exploit a U.S. invasion of Iraq. And today the CIA is warning Americans of the connection between a rise in terrorism and military activity in Iraq. Certainly it is preferable to address the threat posed by any international criminal in concert with our allies and within the confines of the United Nations. This is the preference outlined in the amendment offered by Senator Levin--an amendment I support.

If you can't see everything mentioned in Obama's two sentences elaborated far more fully in these statements from Boxer and Chafee, you can't read with understanding.

Maybe we should elect Boxer or Chafee President? They seem capable of putting together more than two sentence "arguments".

I don't support Obama because when it comes to doing what's right vs doing what's in his perceived political best interest, we can't trust him.
His behavior throughout this campaign has borne that out in spades.

And Hillary Clinton was, and remains, too craven to say anything like that.

You just underscored my point.

And here's some commentary, presumably from a speech on the Senate Floor by Paul Wellstone (dated Oct 3, 2002):

I believe an international approach is essential. In my view, our policy should have four key elements. First and foremost, the United States must work with our allies to deal with Iraq. We should not go it alone or virtually alone with a pre-emptive ground invasion. Most critically, acting alone could jeopardize our top national security priority, the continuing war on terror. The intense cooperation of other nations in matters related to intelligence-sharing, security, political and economic cooperation, law enforcement and financial surveillance, and other areas has been crucial to this fight, and enables us to wage it effectively with our allies. Over the past year, this cooperation has been our most successful weapon against terror networks. That -- not attacking Iraq should be the main focus of our efforts in the war on terror. We have succeeded in destroying some Al Qaida forces, but many of its operatives have scattered, their will to kill Americans still strong. The United States has relied heavily on alliances with nearly 100 countries in a coalition against terror for critical intelligence to protect Americans from possible future attacks. Acting with the support of allies, including hopefully Arab and Muslim allies, would limit possible damage to that coalition and our anti-terrorism efforts. But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."

Again, a lot more impressive than two sentences, I should think.

And frankly0 conveniently ignores my comment which had a link to a video of an Obama interview in 2002, where he talks about the dangers of postwar Iraq and the potential for it to split along ethnic lines.

I'll repeat my request to frankly0. Given this video of Obama in 2002, show me a speech/comment/quote from Hillary, or any other Congressman or Senator, where they demonstrated a more prescient understanding of the dangers of ethnic division in Iraq prior to the invasion.

Maybe we should elect Boxer or Chafee President? They seem capable of putting together more than two sentence "arguments".

Maybe if they had thrown their hats into the ring, folks would. But they didn't.

The point isn't that a handful of other candidates spoke at greater length about their opposition to the war. The point isn't that Obama wasn't the first to say it was a bad idea to invade a second Muslim nation before we had wrapped up operations in the first we went to war against. These are just distractions from the essential point, which you continue to obscure. The point is that, as far as the war is concerned, only one of the three remaining candidates voted against AUMF. The point is that Obama was right, and Clinton & McCain were wrong.

I have no idea why, rather than discussing any of the many strengths Clinton has a candidate, one of her supporters continues to return the discussion to the worst political decision of her career, but there you have it.

From elmo (Hillary Supporter):

I don't support Obama because when it comes to doing what's right vs doing what's in his perceived political best interest, we can't trust him.
His behavior throughout this campaign has borne that out in spades.

You have got to be kidding, right? I mean Hillary did no less than VOTE FOR WAR because she perceived it as being in her political interest. There is no greater example of cynical political maneuvering than voting to send troops into battle because you're afraid to be on the "wrong" side of a popular quickly won war.

Yeah, that's who I want to be President....yikes.

Frankly keeps making a distinction without a difference. It's a matter of who was right and who was wrong, not word count.

Hillary voted for and supported the war. Obama didn't.

case closed.

Here is material from Russ Feingold's speech before AUMF (very prescient!):

Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

Maybe he should be our next President -- more than two sentences!

Ok frankly0, I'm looking for two keywords in the quotes you keep popping up (which are mostly generic "bad things will happen" quotes), and I'd like these two words to have come from Hillary's mouth prior to the invasion. They are "Sunni" and "Shiite".....go google for it quickly now and let me know when you find it.

show me a speech/comment/quote from Hillary, or any other Congressman or Senator, where they demonstrated a more prescient understanding of the dangers of ethnic division in Iraq prior to the invasion.

Are you serious? Seriously? Are you fucking sitting there on your stupid ass thinking that Obama was the only one that realized there was ethnic division in Iraq?

OBAMAZOOID ALERT! OBAMAZOOID ALERT!

You have got to be kidding, right?

Yes, Joe. Try and keep up...

elmo,

I'm sitting here in amazement that frankly0 is finding oodles of quotes from people that AREN'T Hillary demonstrating that they knew a hell of a lot more about what we were getting into than she did.

I'm also sitting here with the knowledge that Obama's comments about the potential for ethnic conflict in Iraq were not commonly aired by politicians prior to the invasion. And if you think I'm wrong, prove me wrong.

I watched Hillary's meandering pathetic two-faced speech prior to her Iraq vote, and there wasn't one mention of post-Saddam Iraq in it.

But, keep thinking, she's the "experienced" candidate and knows what the fuck she's talking about. I mean, she only got the most important issue of the last 30 years wrong....

To plagiarize Joe Biden, there are only three things elmo mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb, and invective directed at anyone who supports Obama.

Seriously, are you even capable of writing more than three sentences that involve supporting your candidate instead of slamming anyone with the temerity to prefer someone else? Put the crayons away & grow up.

To plagiarize Joe Biden

Funny you mention Biden. Am I capable of putting more than three sentences together? Of course I am.

And Joe upthread says,

Yes, you did miss something. Here's an interview he did in 2002. Take particular note of what he says around the 1:20 mark where he emphasizes the challenges we might face after the fall of Saddam, and the worry that Iraq would splinter along Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish lines. This recognition of the challenges facing a post-Saddam Iraq, and in particular regarding Iraq's ethnic groups, was spot on, and few people, whether they were pro-war or against it, were airing that concern at the time. Now show me a quote where Hillary, or really any other Congressman or Senator, prior to the invasion, demonstrated such prescience.

And we get this from Wes Clark at the time,

Clark, who was the NATO commander in charge of the effort to stop the crisis in Kosovo in 1999, spoke of his experiences in Bosnia, where he learned first-hand about the chaos of unleashed ethnic hatreds. It is exactly this chaos that has led Clark to raise a voice of concern over possible conflict with Iraq. Clark believes that a military war with Iraq could be over in as little as two weeks. He is concerned with the lack of a long-range plan for the chaos that would ensue among the Kurds, Shiites, and those factions loyal to Saddam Hussein, which Clark believes would play out on a much larger scale than what took place in Bosnia.

Maybe Clark should be made President?

And I doubt that no member of Congress at the time would have failed to have made similar observations -- not least because they would have cadged them from Clark, as I suspect was true of Obama himself (does anyone really think he came up with the idea independently?)

But I've spent enough time googling on this.

I'm sitting here in amazement that frankly0 is finding oodles of quotes from people that AREN'T Hillary demonstrating that they knew a hell of a lot more about what we were getting into than she did.

You entirely miss the point I'm arguing.

What I'm pointing out is precisely that there are all kinds of people who were at least as "prescient" as Obama regarding the Iraq war, and that he is on that count absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

As I argued earlier in the thread, one can explain Obama's opposition to the war entirely in terms of his need to satisfy his constituents in his extremely anti-war district. If you add to this fact that he does nothing but trot out very much standard issue anti-war arguments used by many at the time, what's left to make Obama seem in any way remarkable?

Gosh frankie, there's just that small little worm that Obama was right and Hillary was wrong, wrong, wrong (as I knew she was at the time, as I was angry with her about at the time)... but please, do prate on about how remarkable or unremarkable Obama's views may or may not have been or what elements may or may not have informed his views or contributed to his position or whatever completely-beside-the-point point has your current fancy.

But I gotta admit your perplexingly persistant partisan prattle has me bemused. Thanks!

and go Dems!

From frankly0:

Maybe Clark should be made President?
And I doubt that no member of Congress at the time would have failed to have made similar observations -- not least because they would have cadged them from Clark, as I suspect was true of Obama himself (does anyone really think he came up with the idea independently?)

Iraq's potential to fracture along ethnic lines either wasn't recognized or completely dismissed by those advocating war. I never heard Hillary mention it prior to the invasion. And in fact the only people that I did hear it from prior to the invasion were Obama, and military commanders with experience in Bosnia and Kosovo (Clark and Shinseki).

What I'm pointing out is precisely that there are all kinds of people who were at least as "prescient" as Obama regarding the Iraq war, and that he is on that count absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
As I argued earlier in the thread, one can explain Obama's opposition to the war entirely in terms of his need to satisfy his constituents in his extremely anti-war district. If you add to this fact that he does nothing but trot out very much standard issue anti-war arguments used by many at the time, what's left to make Obama seem in any way remarkable?

And I am arguing that that is ridiculous. He explained why he was against the war, gave specific areas to be concerned about, at a time when few politicians were willing to speak out against it. Intelligence and judgment are what matters.

Now you can say it was all his constituency, and he was just obeying their commands like a zombie, but that's bullshit because you can say that about everyone. How bout Feingold? Was his constituency pro-war? No. What about Wellstone? No. How bout Chaffee? No. And what a coincidence, all these folks were against the war. But since their constituencies were against it as well, according to you, I guess their opposition to it should be dismissed as unremarkable....which I guess means one's opposition to the war can only be genuine if one's constituency was for it??

Now, how about Hillary? Was her constituency, New York, for the war? No. Yet, she voted for it.....so what does that mean? You're not suggesting that she deserves credit for going against her constituents wishes and enabling this debacle to take place, are you?

"What I'm pointing out is precisely that there are all kinds of people who were at least as 'prescient' as Obama regarding the Iraq war, and that he is on that count absolutely nothing out of the ordinary."

And what we're pointing out to you is that you have yet to make the case for your assertions and that Obama was, in fact, out of the ordinary when compared with his peers and with the then members of Congress, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain. And that's all we really neeed to do: compare and contrast Obama with his two rivals. He wins, hands down.

"As I argued earlier in the thread, one can explain Obama's opposition to the war entirely in terms of his need to satisfy his constituents in his extremely anti-war district."

You have yet to establish that his district was an "extremely anti-war district", that Obama's position was determined, or even influenced, by his supposed "need to satisfy his constituents", and that Obama's public statements outlining his opposition were incorrect. Basically, you've been making shit up because you just don't have a case and you know it.

"If you add to this fact that he does nothing but trot out very much standard issue anti-war arguments used by many at the time"

Um, dear heart, since those statements were, by and large, both correct and prescient, I'm not sure what point you think you're making. Hillary Clinton was certainly exposed to the same arguments that Obama was and yet she made the wrong choice. What does this say about the two of them?

"what's left to make Obama seem in any way remarkable?"

The comparison to Clinton and McCain.

"If you can't see everything mentioned in Obama's two sentences elaborated far more fully in these statements from Boxer and Chafee, you can't read with understanding."

LOL... Dear heart, since Obama's statements consisted of far more than just "two sentences," I'd be a little more careful with your criticism about being able to "read with understanding."

In any case, you're partially correct -- I should have given more props to those few brave souls in the House and Senate who did actually look at the data and did realize just where we were going. Sadly, Hillary Clinton was not one of those.

Now what was your point again?

"I don't support Obama because when it comes to doing what's right vs doing what's in his perceived political best interest, we can't trust him."

ROFL.... As compared to Clinton's behavior?

Man, this was hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

[trolling deleted, IP registered]

obamab bribes delagates