All of us have had to come to the realization that she is not who we thought she was. Welcome to the reality based community. For me it was when she voted yes on the iraq war.

Thanks. I'm sure that wasn't easy to write. I think you point on Penn is exactly right, in that he's giving her horrible advice and it doesn't speak well of her that she's agreeing with Penn's direction.

I continue to be baffled why politicians, from people running for the state legislature to those running for President, put so much stock (and money) in paid political consultants (like Penn) who I've found to be totally disconnected from reality. Gore and Kerry fell victims to the same problem.

I think more than anything voters want someone who is genuine and consultants are always trying to make their client into "someone else" - because if you don't have to change them then why are you needed?

If Hillary concedes and starts campaigning for Obama and other Democrats, I imagine that all of a sudden people will start saying "now that's the Hillary we wanted to see in the primary."

What you are seeing is desperation. No one turns to once and future enemies for aid without the expectation of a heavy price being extracted.

And the question we all need to ask - especially those who, like you, are Clinton supporters, is this: What is that price being extracted? We all know the invoice will come at some point.

I can see her justification for some of her tactics though. The end justifies the means. I do believe that she thinks she is the best candidate and will be the best president. It is from that belief that she tacitly allows for some of the tactics to be used, be it from Fox News, Scaife, or Limbaugh republicans pushing her vote totals up. The double speak about florida and michigan which Dean could have handled better back in 2007, but for which the ultimate responsibility lies with the state delegations.

One thing shows through, Obama has played by the rules set forth by the DNC, Clinton has tried to change them to suit her. You can make the arguement that Obama would have done the same if thier positions were reversed, but they are not and he has not broken with the DNC rules.

Another Clinton supporter falls...

If it makes you feel any better, I think you are just the start of something we'll be seeing more often, over the next several weeks.

In any case, it was a tough post for you to write, and I appreciate your honesty.

The Scaife photo is Clinton's "Lieberman Kiss," or "McCain Hug."

Hey destor23, just wanted to say that you've always supported HRC on this site in a positive way and for that you should be commended.

I think that your sentiments about wanting a candidate who is a "fighter" are shared even by Obama supporters. I know that I want a fighter in the White House as well, and I think that Obama has shown that he is that man. The difference is that when he fights, he just does it more cleverly than Clinton. As another_reader points out above, Obama is able to get away with taking little jabs at Clinton now and again, and poke hole in her credibility. Unfair? Maybe, but the guy is trying to win just like Clinton. To me, this ability of his is not the sign of media bias but rather political savvy on the part of the Obama campaign. The staffers working for him do not leak things to the press. They shut up and apologize when they say something inappropriate, and the top people never make the same mistake. Most impressively, they have stuck to their narrative which, if repeated often enough, gets stuck in our heads - Change. Hope. Unity. Progress.

Clinton has never been able to knock Obama off of his narrative. He is just a better politician than she is. I know that's hard to see (even for Obama supporters maybe), because we've been told so often that Hillary and Bill are evil political geniuses who can think 6 years in advance and have plotted out every single day from here until November.

It's not true. Obama is a fighter, too. He's just fighting smarter.

Props on this one. I'm for Obama, but I don't WANT to dislike Hillary (or Bill for that matter). I don't understand moves like this one, and I really, really don't understand Bill going on Rush Limbaugh during the TX primary. What possible benefit is there for Democrats to acknowledge these clowns? I don't get it at all. I'd prefer none of them even go on Fox.

"Dialing up Osama for a li'l chat"???

Louisville1975, what are you talking about?

destor, you should at least take solace in the knowledge that Hillary is tough enough to whup Ric Flair in a fair fight. With an arm tied behind her back, even.

"Have you noticed that the last few weeks Obama has launched character attacks against Hillary even after his promise that he wouldn't practice the politics of personal destruction? "

Everyone has their limit. Obama tried to run a polite campaign, but Billary's attacks made it impossible. If you signed a treaty with someone who then began attacking you non-stop, would you honor the treaty?

Ric, I started out a passionate Hillary supporter too, but she lost me quite a while back when she or her advisors felt she wasn't good or strong enough to run as the Hillary I thought I knew. They were wrong. I don't recognize the person running now. In the end you get a sense of betrayal because you wonder it that person was ever who you thought they were. I understand that she really wants to win and everything she does now appears to be out of desperation. But don't you think that Edwards was disappointed too and how do you think Al Gore felt. He actually won!

No, I really had not noticed that Obama had "launched character attacks against Hillary."

The onbly thing I've noticed are Hillary's & Bill's increasingly absurd attacks on Obama. Obama has of course defended himself against such attacks as necessary. If this is what you mean by "character attacks", I challenge you to show me one such comment by Obama that has not come in response to some outlandish criticism from the Clinton camp.

The Jeremiah Wright attack is one of the most vicious ploys that I have yet seen in politics. It was virulently racist in character. It went after Obama for being a member of the African American community with both barrels. They did everything short of calling him a "nigger." But clearly that's exactly what it was intending to do. It's appeal was to the lowest instincts of the electorate.

Any reporter will tell you that it was the Clinton which pushed this so-called story until they finally succeeded in getting someone to go on air with it. Then, the other lemmings in the media all fell in line.

In the wake of this assault & the exposuer of Hillary's numerous lies, it's a joke that anyone could accuse Obama of "character attacks." First they savage the man & then say that it was his fault.

Despicable.

When she said she was "experienced" she should have been talking about her political experience -- more about what she's seen and been through than what she's done.

Yes. The way that she has been pushing experience, and what she seems to mean by it, doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. The experience of withstanding a virulent right wing, and a disastrous scandal created by her husband--that's important experience, even if people want to diminish it. But she really hasn't run on that.

And even if she is the nominee (which, let's face it, seems increasingly unlikely to happen), she's never going to overcome the repeated misstatements about her Bosnia experience.

I'm voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is. But the gross campaign mismanagement, the reliance on the odious Penn, and the Bosnia flapdoodle make me question her ability. And that's one thing that I had never questioned.

And destor23? Your comments have always been positive, and your criticisms insightful.

This was a great post. I think 'toughness' and 'fighter' are terms warped by the Bush years. US culture equates tough and fighter too often with straight up a%$hole. That is someone who uses any means to an end, someone who can makes a virtue of self-preservation and power. We think "well, if they can play no-hold's barred' then I want them on my side. Well, truth is an a##hole will not 'fight' for YOU, or those without power.

Edwards did a great job presenting himself as a fighter. That's because he said explicitly that he would fight on behalf of the powerless. Clinton no such deal.

There is a gender aspect as well. Many women think this is how you have to behave to deal in a 'man's world'. I lived through Thatcher, let me tell you, she is a first rate wanker with ovaries. Not a model of women's power--she would sell-out any dame in a minute.

Obama, has in fact been much, much tougher. Staying cool in the face of an onslaught, maintaining some shred of dignity and reason while up against an idiot MSM, speaks volumes. He has consistently taken the more difficult path--speaking out against homophobia in the black church when that would gain him no political points--is a fine example.

Clinton's caving to the far-right is not an indication of toughness--it is as the commenter points out the ultimate political capitulation. A true mark against her character. It means she would sell-out her beloved white 'working-class' constituency in a heart-beat. That's what Sciaffe does anyway, sells them race resentment and librul hatred while he screws them economically. Clinton supporters want to believe this is just 'strategy', justified. Oh and the delusory, Obama would do it too. Well truth is NO, despite his shortcomings this is NOT his electoral strategy. It's Clinton's. Own it Baby!! But know one thing, she not a fighter for the 'little people'.

Ahh America, plus ça change...

destor, look at the ecstatic response. You're endorsement is in greater demand that of John Edwards. I think that you should hold off and play up your negotiating position.