Krugman is done. He became a total tool. What a loss.

Mirror Check, MJ.

Krugman is saying unite or die.

Historically, when there have been close Dem nomination fights, we lose. Why? Because we divide our party and alienate people that would normally vote with us.

Respectfully, you are the worst offender here. Your calls for division are unseemly, and only help McCain.

It's a matter of framing and perspective. To Krugman, the LBJ flap and the RFK flap is caused by Obama supporters reacting excessively to Hillary's comments. They apparently assume the best of possible motives for Hillary, and think ascribing race-baiting intent to her motives is unfair politics by the Obama camp.

Partisan Obama supporters might say the opposite about Clinton pushing the "bitter" and "cling" comments as an issue, and using them to describe Obama as an elitist was equally, if not more, absurd.

Even the best politicians sometimes make impolitic statements, and it is certainly possible to overreact to them. But Krugman seems to be blaming this fracas on the Obama camp's reaction, not Clinton's original, unfortunate comments, despite Obama's own unequivocal statement, "Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I would take her at her word on that." Blaming the controversy over Clinton's gaffe on Obama supporters, ignoring the candidate's diminution of the issue, is itself absurd also.

Partisans on both sides have been irrationally extreme in their reactions to perceived slights. Certainly stylistic differences between the candidates are significant and important, but on the issues the two are quite similar. Perhaps that similarity explains, ironically, the vehemence of the fight.

Alexander Pope was right: what mighty contests rise from trivial things!

Whoa! As a rape survivor I am appalled that you DARE use that term. You disgust me. How could ANYTHING that has been written or said even remotely compare to rape? Even remotely! You need to get your head out of the ether.

Hillary Clinton has never and will never, and I mean NEVER come close to rape. She's spent most of her adult life surrounded by security in mansions paid for by taxpayers. She's one of most protected people on the planet. She lives in a bubble of her own creation -- and any "rough treatment" she has experienced over this campaign or any other time in her life, she ACCEPTED as part of political life. She chose. She could step into or out of that spotlight any time she desires.

Rape victims do not have a choice.

As for verbal abuse, please. Do NOT ever even consider verbal abuse akin to rape. Just do NOT.

You people with banter with words and consider yourselves savvy and erudite. You disgust me.

Just like Senator Clinton -- THINK before you open your mouths.

What I have come to understand from all the Clintonista threats to secede from the Democratic party and their admonitions that should Clinton not win they will not vote for Obama, regardless, and from their ongoing mantra blaming Obama is that these people are Clintonites, not Democrats. They, like their icon only want what they want and the earth be scorched. It finally sunk in when in an appalling overabundance of tacky Clinton chose to bolster her determination to stay on by alluding to RFK's assassination. EVEN if no malice was attached to the utterance, it was done in a blatant attempt to tie herself to the Kennedy aura rather than to cite more recent, more reasonable examples of late campaigns. But it was HER gaffe and furious that Sen. Obama did not flaunt it as she did the bitter comments and the Wright situation, she and her minions decided that if he was going to be rational, they could blame him for HER dim-witted obtuse comment. (her own mentor, Charles Rangel, has already called her utterances 'dumb'". Her camp followers (including Krugman)have bought it hook line and sinker. I have read the blogs. It's Obama's fault that she is being 'demonized'. It is obvious from her lack of endorsements that the Superdelegates see her for what she is. It is obvious from the Superdelegates that have abandoned her that they do not want any part of her campaign. Like a wilfull child she has ravaged the fabric of unity in the name of Clinton. She should at least have the decency to accept the blame.

I don't get it when I hear one side or the other say that the supporters of the other candidate are the evil ones. Get a grip! There's vehemence expressed by both sides. To those who say Clinton has been unfairly attacked here, why not go check out hillaryis44.com, where the attacks on Obama are relentless and overhyped.

The true dynamics here are that both campaigns started out waging a mostly positive campaign. Obama took the lead in that stage of the campaign. Clinton's only hope to win was to go negative. She did it. It worked partially - she stemmed the bleeding and got to breakeven for the post-Wisconsin contests. But breakeven wasn't good enough, as Obama had the lead. I think it's fair to say that had Clinton gotten the lead, Obama's campaign would have been far less negative than hers. It's partially a stylistic (and hopefully governing) preference - and it's also true that this is her last, best shot at the presidency, so she had more motivation to throw the kitchen sink.

The problem is that she has continued to gin up her supporters' sense of resentment well past the point at which she has lost the contest. There is always some resentment at the end of a primary contest. I remember resenting Carter for beating Udall; Carter for beating Kennedy; Mondale for beating Hart (with that ridiculous "Where's the Beef" line, and Roger Mudd's unfair slant on the southern primaries - the wounds take a long time to heal), etc. But I got over it and voted Democratic every time. What Clinton is doing is taking it too far. She is emphasizing not only differences, but imagines that she, exclusively, has suffered slights - which, frankly, took place on both sides of the campaign. She is hurting Obama as the national nominee. it is time to give it up if she really believes in the policies she has run on. There's too much healing to be done. If this goes on to the convention, there is no way the Democrats win.

Pablo

So once again we have Obama distancing himself from his supporters, who continue to be ever so thin skinned about anything that could possibly be construed as some slight, even though his nomination is certainly in the bag. Move on!

The real concern I have (and I did vote for Obama) is not him, it's his inablility to deal in any way with his supporters and surrogates to keep them on message (you know, messages that talk about policies and positions, not personalities). If in his desire to bring "change" about he cannot even keep his own supporters from going off the reservation, how is he going to govern. The shock and outrage over anything and everything Clinton does just feeds the right wing attack machine.

How we all feel toward the current administration and Republicans in general is where our energies must be directed.

I am so disappointed in Kos and Josh for allowing their sites to fall into gutter politics. Progressives have few enough places to go for real info about what is going on, not gossip, rumor and trivial tales.

Grow up people, this is our and our children's future we hold in our hands. This isn't a food fight.