John take a deep breath and count to ten.

John, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It seems that the left and liberal side of the Democratic party has taken up the Republican hating anti-Clinton banner as their own. This will be the demise of the party. It is Obama's loss that he is a part of this or even a beneficiary of it. He's unprepared for the Republicans to do the same to him as they did and his supporters now attempt against Clinton. Does he or they really think the Republicans will come into the fall, if he were to become the nominee, and say, "Ah, a nice Democrat, lets simply talk issues"?

"The liberal wing of the Democratic party, unfortunately the ones who will nominate the next Democratic Presidential candidate, has become as irresponsible and vicious toward the Clintons as conservative fundamentalist and the MSM."

I nominate this sentence as the most over-the-top, nonsense sentence I've read on TPM -- or anywhere else. Talk about a broad brush. Man, you take blog garbage much too seriously. You ought to get out more.

You are absolutely right. I have left all the other liberal blogs and will be leaving this one for the same reason. A lot of other people have too.

The reason Hillary's challenge to MSNBC is so important is that it is not JUST about Chelsea. It is about all the sexism, viciousness, and incredible anti-Clinton pro-Obama bias in the so called "news." There was finally an incident that was so pointed that it could be confronted head on. Rosa Parks was not just about the back of the bus either.

I thought I was an astute feminist, but the level of woman-hating that this campaign has brought out in a whole bunch of people is horrific. For the sake of that hatred they are willing to sacrifice their reason, their common sense, and the future of the country.

the importance of having someone in the Oval Office who can inspire us to tap into the better angels of our nature -- who can stir people to expect more of themselves than they otherwise would.

A very good point. So far Obama inspired his supporters to tap into the worst deamons of their nature.

Man, what you read on blogs is really only 10% of the people (as I am sure you are aware). People with extreme tendencies seem to speak louder then the average person. I have felt the same as you when being attacked by HRC supporters. It's life on the internet.

I went to caucus today and you know what, nearly everyone was treated with total and utter respect. We discussed the issues and came to our decisions. It was extremely cordial, and from what I saw it was that way everywhere I looked.

I do not "Hate" Hillary. I support Obama, but I tend to stay silent most of the time in blogs because I do not like to be flamed by faceless people when I try to get my ideas across. This is a problem on both sides of the fence.. but it is mostly a problem with the nature of the internet.

Out of 50 or so people I met today only two were in any way rude or hurtful. One was an Obama supporter, one a Hillary supporter. Everyone else was just concerned with getting there voice heard, even if others did not agree.

What about who can best do the job. Why are people willing to hand our country over to anyone, because they don't personally like Hillary? I have never heard the Hillary haters say, she can't do the job or she would not be the better person to be president. They just say, they don't like her. I thought this was about getting the best person for the job. This likability factor is way overrated. George Bush beat Gore simply because he was more likable than Gore, even though we all knew Gore would make the better president. People act suprised when Bush didn't know what he was doing, and we are paying for it now. I want best president. If we screw this up, we will be even worse off.

Bret08 said "This likability factor is way overrated."

Why are Hillary supporters so naive about the depth and quality of opposition to her. Writing it off as "Hillary haters" may be comforting, but it is untrue."

The opposition to the Clintons is not about "likeability." It is about Hillary's lack of qualification, horrible judgment and fundamental lack of integrity. We have seen the consequences of a presidency built on lies, famliy ties and corporate cronyism... the worst presidency in history. Why would we want to buy into that model again, just with a different party registration?

To the author of this comment-thread....
You are way out of touch.

You have a favorite in this race. Because approx. 50% of dem voters do not agree with your favorite...then all of them are rightwing haters tapping into the power of the vast rightwing conspiracy.

I don't hate the Clinton's. I do hate the Big Business Corporate Influence, and I do hate their campaign dirty tricks and people like Mark Penn. We have had to lug around Bill and his luggage for a long time. Many of us have made MANY allowances for the Clintons and defended them against YEARS of abuse and everything the corporate media was directed to throw at them. I witnessed the QB of my team being savaged by others who were supposed to be on our team....americans. We had a prez who was very capable, and the Rightwing decided to hamstring him, take shots at him, tie his hands, destroy everything they could. And I helped defend against WJC and HRC. I gave them everything I had.

But the Hilary supporters have, by and large, decided to HATE the other half of the Dem electorate. You really need to get a grip. This is exactly what everyone does NOT WANT TO SEE, is our own party getting fractured before we settle on a nominee. Getting hysterical and crazy and calling 1/2 of the leftwing TRAITORS and HYPOCRITES is just purely false. I do NOT WANT Hilary as my nominee. If you will kindly take the word of someone who was sickened by the Rightwing Lynching of Clinton's presidency, and the sickened by the Rightwing Ruiners of Truth these last 8 years...I wish no Ill on the Clintons. And I would like to see a woman prez for a change, but not Hilary. Trust me. I have no misogyny. And as someone who has deeply studied the tricks and crimes of the Rightwing Noise Machine....you are wrong and hurting your own kind when you say we are no better than them or using their tactics. Almost 100%, we are not.

You have to be brave enough to accept who the Dems nominate, you cannot throw a tantrum and pick up your ball and quit just because she looks like she may not win. Grow up. For all the truth there is in the RightWing attack machine, you look like a snivelly whiny lefty that the RightWing has always claimed we were. If you are gonna get all paranoid and blame someone, stick to the truth. Stick to the stuff we all know and have proved are Rightwing attacks. Don't start throwing it around and tarring Dems with it....it diminishes the truth about the rightwing attack machine, makes you look paranoid, and tars otherwise like-minded folks who support what you want out of government.

Hilary backers are threatening to explode the Dem party because their sure-thing isn't looking so sure anymore. Is that a good enough reason? Take a deep breath and muster your courage, don't flail around and destroy all of our chances.

I think you're overreacting and then some.

The truth is David Shuster (who should have his own show after this) was absolutely right in what he said AND how he said it. Clinton USED (after she got beat in IOWA) her daughter in an unseemly way to further her own ambitions and re-direct her campaign to appeal to the "youth vote."

Not the sort of qualities you'd expect from a political "leader" much less a decent parent.

Hillary is past her "sell by date" and should step aside for the good of the party and the country.

If she sincerely cared about the American people, as she claims to, she would accept the leadership of the Senate (a co-equal branch of the government) and contribute from there. Anything more is pure vanity.

What is so hard to understand about that?

"Obama supporters are just plain nuts. WTF?

Hillary needs to step aside asap, for the good of the party and the good of the country.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is "just plain nuts."

End of discussion.

Perhaps after Obama get the nomination Hillary could run on a 3rd party ticket with Ralph Nader.

I fully appreciate what John has said regarding the vile treatment of Hillary Clinton. What's more troubling is that bloggers themselves have applied the same treatment to Ms. Clinton and have seemed to encourage their charges to do the same.

I've put a few of those blogs on probation (so far no double secret probation) until they recover.

I consider myself a liberal and I don't really believe that all liberals by any means support or condone the tawdry behavior we've witnessed. In fact much of what I've read from people making comments lead me to believe that these people aren't really Democrats but are rather the independents and politician haters that Obama has cultivated.

Read their comments carefully and they betray a lack of fundamental knowledge of politics, government and public affairs. Basically the doofus set.

I am floored by the notion that the great majority of his followers are liberals. I don't believe that they are in any way. They are self described liberals but I really don't think they know, from a political standpoint, what that means.

If they were in fact liberals I would have to ask them why they're supporting the most conservative Democratic candidate for the nomination that I can recall and I've followed politics since 1952. The media characterized the policy positions of all three front runners as nearly identical. That is, quite frankly, horsesh*t. Obama is to the right of Hillary Clinton and was significantly to the right of John Edwards (disclosure: I'm an Edwards supporter) and that is illustrated by tyhe candiadtes response to actions they would take in the event of a recession. Obama's cut was straight out of the GOP playbook as was his response to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Obama later added to his recession remedies but they still fell short of the comprehensive actions proposed by Edwards and Clinton.

There are other elements including his lack of a proposal for a government run health insurance offering to compete with private plans. Edwards and Clinton both proposed government plans. Edwards' may well have lead to single-payer.

Also overlooked by self-described liberals is Obama's declaration that Social Security is in crisis. That notion came from one of Obama's economic advisors who favors privatization of Social Security. In fact Obama's economics advisory staff consists entirely of market oriented economists. Obama has made no effort to reach out to center-left economists.

So I don't believe in any way these people represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party (AKA New Deal liberals like me).

They may be social liberals mistaking those ideas for political liberalism. Most of us and probably most of the people in the country are at least to some degree socially liberal. I'm 65 and witnessed a whole different world and I can testify that this nation is FAR more socially liberal than in the past. To be a political liberal means not just social liberalism but a whole LOT more.

So please stick around John I don't think these people are in any way honest to God liberals.

Frank Rich also ripped into Bill Clinton during his time in office and joined the mainstream media chorus in castigating Al Gore without cause during the 2000 campaign.

We can thank Rich in part for George W. Bush.

Rich writes well and as long as he's concentrating on Republican perfidy he's fine but he has the same sub-rational mainstream animus for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Edwards.

Now he'd like to do a knockout punch on Hillary Clinton. I read all of his columns but I have to say that the last few weeks he's gone over the edge again. It's 1998, 2000, 2004 all over again with him. If a candidate is earnest and specific about policy and various issues, Rich will tear into them like a mis-treated pit bull. He hates policy wonks and makes no bones about it.

I have a nasty little theory about Rich that goes like this: Rip into the Democratic candidate and make sure a Republican is elected in order to provide ample material for future columns.

Rich is as cynical as the rest of the crowd.

Bah -- There is no liberal wing of the Democratic Party. And there are no liberals in American Government. Dennis Kucinich is as liberal as you can get, but if he were a European he'd be considered middle of the road.

Claiming there are liberals in American Government is just another right wing glass of kool aid.

Damn! The extremism here is pretty impressive!

First: Take note that Obama is routinely painted as from the left end of the party (via his senate record) but also from the middle/righter end of the party (via his support from "rich, white" folks).

Uh... he can't be both. So maybe a little less labeling and a few less purity tests are in order.

Second: Those who support Obama can do so without orgasming. Those who don't support Hillary can do so without wanting to vaporize her.

Third: This remark is, well, remarkable:

Reading the responses on TPM, not so subtly fueled by TPM, to Hillary Clintons defense of her daughter, HER CHILD, HER CHILD regarding the obscene, mean-spirited comment by David Schuster made me sick.

Um... what would you tell the mother of a dead or maimed soldier (HER CHILD, HER CHILD) that a Senator essentially voted for war without doing a nominal amount of homework (reading the NIE)?

Let's have some perspective here: needless death is obscene. Pimp is a word(!) that unfortunately got used because it got away from Schuster's point: that the Clintons were exploiting Chelsea. If he used the word "exploiting" would we have the scenario as it played out? I think not.

Lastly, if it helps at all, your essay already scored 17 recommends, while mine:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/im-sorry-so-sorry.php

which takes a very different point of view, only scored a measly 6. So, dude, you win!

Wow. Lot of anger coming out of here - on both sides. Ay-yep, juuuuuuust about time for the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot, self-destruct and hand the Presidency to McCain.

Yeah, Shuster is a jerk - I think just about everyone is going to agree on that one, even the ones that don't want him fired. Fire Shuster or don't - there are a million other suits to take his place. Frankly, he's such a tiny piece of what needs to get fixed in this country, that I'm not even going to incorporate that into my gunny sack of bad things about America.

Dear John. Did you go to your caucus and talk over the candidates and issues with your neighbors? I hope you did or will. It's a much different perspective than the blogosphere. The Grassroots. That's where you should expend your energy and your anger at the machine. Who knows, it might turn the tide for HRC. Oh, wait, I hope not! I'm actually in the Obama camp. Yeah, so it's pretty easy for me to REMAIN CALM, but please, please don't abandon the Democratic party this year. We need to get a Democrat in the oval office. It's hugely important to the nation - and the planet in general. Yes we can?

Sigh . . .

About the Shuster thing . . . can everyone just get a grip?

Let's start w/the obvious. Despite the poor choice of language, Shuster obviously was not attacking Chelsea for being a prostitute. No one seriously thinks that if Pat Leahy casts his superdelegate vote for Hillary he gets to spend a hot & steamy night in the sheets with the first daughter.

What Shuster was clearly saying -- using regretable langugage -- was that Chelsea is being used by Clinton for political ends. And that, of course, is entirely factually true. So is Bill Clinton. And Michelle Obama is being used by Barack for the same purpose.

None of these people, of course, are being used against their will, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with these people for being used by their respective campaigns in this manner. Shuster's only sin was to somehow suggest that what Hillary is doing with Chelsea is somehow improper, when no one suggests that the conduct of any other campaign in using their family/children (Romney, anybody?) is doing anything improper. Simply stated, Shuster's transgression is that he is holding Hillary to a different standard that any other candidate, and this may (may, I say) betray a bias against Hillary.

But -- again, let's be perfectly clear here -- this was an attack on HILLARY. It is quite a stretch to think that Shuster's comments somehow were impugning Chelsea; Shuster was, in most, smearing Hillary for "exploiting" her daughter for political gain.

And yet, somehow Hillary is considered justified in writing a letter about how she "is a mother first," and demanding an apology . . . apparently on behalf of Chelsea WHO WASN'T THE SUBJECT OF AN ATTACK. Additionally, people like John write long posts about how Hillary is acting in defense of "HER CHILD, HER CHILD etc. etc."

If Hillary believes she was -- in fact -- acting in "defense" of "HER CHILD, HER CHILD" then Hillary isn't anything close to as intelligent as I have always thought she was.

No. I can't accept that. Let's call this for what it is: faux outrage, ginned up to distract the public from a dismal spate of actual campaign news.

In fact, it reminds me of nothing so much as Lynne Cheney's going after John Kerry after the debate in 2004 when, after being asked a question about gay rights, he tried to make the issue a bipartisan one by pointing out that Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter and that Dick Cheney loved his daughter very much and supported her, of course. It wasn't a secret that Mary Cheney is gay, she has been out for a long time, and has actively worked, in public life, for gay rights. Kerry wasn't attacking Mary Cheney, but for the horrible crime of mentioning a public fact, HE was attacked by Lynne Cheney for "smearing" Mary -- "He is not a good man," Lynne famously said.

Look, Shuster's comment may indicate an anti-Clinton bias, and it was definitely a poor choice of words, but it wasn't in any way an attack on Chelsea. And this is just another, latest example of Hillary Clinton using what looks to me to be suspsiciously like Republican campaign tactics to try to win at any cost.

A short list: (i) changing the rules to seat Michigan and Florida, after previously agreeing they would not count, (ii) supporting a lawsuit to disenfranchise Nevada voters, after she came to believe those voters would support Obama, and now (iii) working up a false sense of outrage on behalf of "HER CHILD, HER CHILD."

Give me a frickin break.

John:
Your comments are spot on for me as well. It is also further proof by reading all the comments that false stories are still spreading against her even though debunked and the Obama dream seems to have swamped all sense of real reasoning at this stage and he sounds nothing more than another rehash of George Bush hopes and promises 8 years ago.

She was certainly effective in helping us go to Iraq. Oh, sorry, it's mostly men getting killed over there. Guess that makes me a misogynist.

Quite over dramatic.
Amongst many of the reasons I don't like Hillary is this one: I'm 24. I have no memory of a President being in office who wasn't a Clinton or Bush. I just cannot understand why this isn't a concern for people. There are 300 million people in the US. It sounds pretty shady to say that with a 1 in 3 million chance, the wife of a former President just happens to be the most qualified to lead our nation. Huh! What are the odds?! Oh yeah, the odds are 1 in 3,000,000.

party-of-one, if you did your homework you'd know that Hillary not only campaigned for Barack, when he ran for the national senate, she was one of his fund raisers. she has supported his political career and then he turns around and says she demonizes everyone who doesn't agree with her. she has had a very successful senate career and she certainly hasn't done that by demonizing people. i was not a Hillary supporter from the beginning but am now an advid supporter. one, because she is better informed than Barack and two because i grew tired of the same "inspirational" speech in which he says nothing. actually, he admitted he doesn't say anything because he read people thought he was inspiring when he talked about the issues. nice to know he prefers a dumbed down America to an "inspired" one.

I observed in the past few weeks the same thing John did - the "internalization" by people in the Clinton's own party of the hatred against them bought and paid for by the "vast, right-wing conspiracy". Many are understandably tired of the negativity that follows in their wake but seem to forget that much of it is the result of an effective propoganda campaign that was ginned up by big money from Richard Mellon Scaife - the eccentric gazillionaire that paid for a full-time disinformation campaign that eventually led to Clinton's impeachment. Obama benefits by being the un-Clinton and his never-ending fount of positive rhetoric doesn't hurt. He's become the great black hope.

That being said, Hillary - and Bill as well - have done their part to allienate many in their own party by their careful, calculated, conservative slant on some issues. But I don't think she deserves the level of animosity that she gets.

As a footnote, Scaife is currently in divorce proceeding for . . . (drum roll, please) . . CHEATING ON HIS WIFE. You got to love the irony. Oh yeah, and he had lunch with Bill Clinton a few months back and came away charmed and singing his praises. Go figure.

There are several blogs I no longer visit because of the nasty rightwing-like attacks on Hillary.

I don't like her politics..thats all. As a human being, I wouldn't mind sitting down and holding a conversation with her. But when folks start labeling her as "The Borg Queen" "Ice Queen" and all other forms of personal attacks..I don't come back for more of the same.

I used to defend the Clintons against conservatives, I was by no means a mindless Clinton-hater. I didn't get to where I am today, utterly disgusted by both of them, overnight and for no reason. My disdain for the Clintons are a direct result of their actions during this campaign. These actions have shown their true character: power hungry and selfish, willing to say and do anything to get ahead, no matter if it hurts fellow Democrats, the party, the country, the voters, nothing else matters do them, and they have proven this time and time again, in countless ways. THAT is why I can't stand the Clintons, not because of some irrational conservative demonizing, but because they brought it upon themselves by being so nasty. I have gotten to the point where if Hillary were to somehow win the nomination, I would switch to Independent because I refuse to be associated with her "leadership" or any party that would nominate her and endorse her tactics and lies.

Well, this campaign is not over yet. Perhaps the party - the superdelegates - might be hesitant to nominate a candidate who:
(1) racked up tons of delegates by winning caucuses in Red states that were organized by Republicans he hired; and
(2) won southern states where african-americans are a huge percent of the electorate.

The headlines that say Obama broke into Hillary's base last night are also not really accurate. It was large numbers of college-educated, affluent whites in Northern Virgina that inflated his numbers in other demographics.

So, before you all start doing a victory lap, let's wait and see what happens in Texas and Ohio.

Thank you for your comment, a flash of sanity in this truly bizarre thread. The hysteria here in post after post is mind boggling. All these threats of supposed adults who want to take their marbles and go home, not to mention announce their decision as if their marbles really matter. One can only wonder. But, more importantly, the thing that is obscured here by all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth is that Senator Clinton unfortunately has, and for some time has had, very real liabilities as a candidate and no amount shrieking over the use of a given gerund on national tv can negate that simple reality. She isn't losing because Chris Matthews is a sexist. She isn't losing because she's a woman and the whole country is sexist. And she isn't losing because the press is giving Barack Obama a free pass. The press hyped Howard Dean incredibly four years ago, he was it, the front runner, the guy to beat, the headlines were annointing him everywhere, and we all know what happened to him. He bombed in the primaries, and it's pretty simple why: the people didn't vote for him. And the number of people who are voting for Hillary Clinton is growing smaller and smaller with each and every one of the state contests. I personally did not vote for her because of her Iraq war vote and the transparent excuses she curently makes for it. I am also not voting for her because of her stance on Iran, and her vote on cluster bombs, and countless other of her positions that are way too hawkish for me. I'm also not terribly impressed with the list of bills she has sponsored or co-sponsored. And, quite frankly, her counting her years as first lady as "executive" experience is ludicrous to me. Does that mean Laura Bush would now be "ready from day one"? This also smacks of running on her husband's record, and that is a mistake too. Like Bill Clinton as much as we all do, sometimes in spite of ourselves, he's got his achilles heel too -- and not just for the Monica follies. There are some instances of influence peddling that are quite troubling on Mr. Clinton's part, and there are some troubling policy decisions during his time in the White House (let's remember, not only the subprime mess, but his administation's hand in deregulating the financial services industry) that nobody's screaming very loudly about at all. I'd say, when you stop to consider the skeletons in the Clinton closet whose bones the pundits and bloggers could be shaking right now, the Clintons are getting off easy with Chris Matthews making a jerk of himself and Bill Clinton getting wrist slapped a couple of times. Mr. Obama himself is going pretty damn easy on the Clinotns himself. There's PLENTY more he could be saying, and without mudslinging either. There's plenty he could say in a well-reasoned, quiet voiced critique. Finally, there's also a term for the Clinton supporting sandbox squabblers and their acting out, and I have no qualms at all about saying it: sore losers.

Yet another "Uniter not a Divider". The kind of guy you'd like to hang out with and have a beer (or in his case, a joint). We've heard this pitch before, and it's already not working.