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