We can always count on Keith Olbermann to speak truth to power without missing words. If more journalists had done this on many other issues, what a different America we would have had. See Keith's special comments here.

Hillary’s most consistent supporters have been folks over 50, especially women over 50. With her statement about assassination, and her bizarre "apologetic" explanation (namely, I was thinking about Teddy and so I mentioned Bobby’s assassination), she just lost a substantial number of these supporters. I will not say all. I will not say those closest to her. But I will say, a very significant number. Most importantly, in terms of the race, many superdelegates in this age cohort, who may have been leaning her way, will be looking around for the nearest Exit sign. Ditto for those who were in favor of placing her in the VP slot.

Most of you reading this commentary will have heard what Hillary Clinton said yesterday afternoon, May 23rd, to the editorial board of South Dakota’s Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, in response to a question about staying in the race.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" she said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." The New York Times, May 24, 2008, Katharine Q Seelye reporting. http://www.nytimes.com/...

And you may have heard Clinton’s "apology," also reported by Seelye in the Times.

" ‘The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,’ referring to the recent diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s brain tumor. She added, ‘And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.’ "

Members of the Democratic Party who experienced the trauma of the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King will understand that Clinton crossed a line yesterday. Many will agree with Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate. Seelye reports that Clyburn "said through a spokeswoman that the comments were ‘beyond the pale.’ " For those who remember Bobby lying in a pool of blood the night that he won the June California primary, little explanation is needed as to why prominent figures shouldn’t mention the assassinations of presidential candidates.

To say that Hillary was simply using RFK’s assassination as a time marker doesn’t cut it. There are simply too many other ways that Hillary could have talked about extended nominating contests. For example, she could have simply said, RFK won the California primary in June. "Oh, but Hillary would never wish the death of another candidate," a supporter might reply. But it is not a question of her wishes, whether benighted or angelic. I leave it to the psychologists to analyze her motives. What I do know is that someone who lived through the sixties as an adolescent or adult should understand the dangers of invoking the assassination of a presidential candidate during a campaign, especially one in which the front-runner is an African-American. And Clinton not only invoked an assassination, she invoked the assassination of the brother of a Senator who has just been diagnosed with terminal cancer. How disturbing is this? Just ask yourself, could you have imagined this story before it happened?

Please don’t tell me that her words can be explained away entirely by 'Hillary fatigue.' First, because she was quite lucid when she was speaking, and, second, because she has raised the issue of assassination before, without using the term.

"NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli notes that Clinton said something similar the day after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. ‘Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992,’ she said. ‘I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process.’ " http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

Perhaps most tellingly, her "apology" showed little understanding of the seriousness of her "gaffe." Yes, she should have apologized to the Kennedys, but she should also have taken responsibility for her remarks and made a sincere apology to the American people. She is going to lose support among influential boomers, support that she can’t afford to lose at this point.

This is the end of Hillary’s quest. Her judgment can no longer be trusted. Democrats will not take a chance on running her for president or VP. It is just awful that it had to end like this.

(As a side note, Hillary has been misleading audiences when she has claimed that Bill’s race ran into June. Technically it did because California hadn’t voted. But he had the nomination sewed up before California’s primary in June. The situation is not analogous to the current race.)

The above was cross-posted on My DD and the Daily Kos, as well as on my blog. 

[When I wrote a blog last week about Teddy Kennedy and the assassination of JFK, "The President, The Senator, and the Candidate." http://msa4.wordpress.com/  of course I had no idea that Clinton would make such a thoughtless statement.  But I believe that this blog reinforces my claim that the trauma of these assassinations is very real for a certain age cohort. And it helps to show that this is not a matter of scoring points against Clinton.  It is heartfelt. I have seen too many knee-jerk defenses of Hillary on the Web. This one requires us to step back.]

Interesting article in the London Times Online

I have no idea how authoritative it is or isn't, but reading this article  certainly cheered me up and I'm passing it on in case there's truth in it and it can heal some nasty feelings here that yesterday's gaffe engendered.  It helps reinforce Barack's `unity` theme: some light at the end of the tunnel?
:-)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3998946.ece

1. Have a previous posting history of at least one previous comment.

2. Do not degenerate to praising FOX News in your fifth post in the thread.

3. Avoid using turns of phrase that can be easily associated with your other usernames.

4. ???

5. PROFIT!!!*


* Payable in McCain Bucks, void where prohibited.

Dear Obama friends,
Senator Obama picked up 3 super delegates today to Senator Clinton 1
Alaska: Former Governor Tony Knowles has endorsed Obama (Add-on)He also may pcik up a second pledged state-wide because his share of state-wide delegates seems to have gone from 74.6% to 77%
Wyoming: Add-on Rep W. Patrick Goggles and has endorsed Senator Obama
Georgia: 2 Add-on were added
state Party Secretary Stephen Leeds has endorsed Senator Obama
Now surprisingly enough, Verna Cleveland has endorsed Senator Clinton
This is odd for several reasons, 
Obama won Georgia with a large majority, and after what Senator Clinton said yesterday, it seems that some Super Delegates have decided 
1/ still to support Senator Clinton2/ still to divide the party
Should SDs still support the Clinton campaign?
Finally, Senator Obama will add 3 more Super Delegates tomorrow from Hawaii

I've just seen the nuclear option video.

Now I've seen Hillary bringing up JFK's assassination... Maybe that's the nuclear option!?!?!

Hillary's just scaring me now!!!!!

P.S. what movie does that nuclear explosion come from?

For the past several weeks I've been taking the polling data Andrew Tanenbaum uses for www.electoral-vote.com and using it as input to Monte Carlo simulations of the general election matchups. State-by-state polling is still erratic at best (some states haven't had polls since the end of February), but since people like to look at the headline electoral vote totals from that site, I think computing averages and winning percentages from the same data provides more value.

I'm using a 4% margin of error on the polls, and am assuming the sampling error on polls is the only source of variability, so at best this is a snapshot in time of the most recent polls. But while this is not a particularly good prediction model (once a lead in a state gets beyond the margin of error, the candidate basically wins it all the time in the simulation), it is interesting to see both how things stand now, and how they've changed over the time I've been running the data. I've found changes in just a few key states can swing winning percentatges wildly, and those percentages can be far more extreme that I'd predict for actual probabilities (or, say, from market probabilities inferred from political futures markets like the Iowa Electronic Markets or Intrade).

So here's the most recent data, using 10,000 trials for each simulation*:
Obama wins 81.0%, averages 281.9 EV
McCain wins 18.8%, averages 256.1 EV
Electoral tie 0.2%

Clinton wins 100%, averages 320.9 EV
McCain wins 0%, averages 217.1 EV
No electoral ties

By comparison, electoral-vote.com gives the state to whoever is leading, and gets totals of Obama 266, McCain 248, tie 24 on one side, and Clinton 314, McCain 207, tie 16.

Obama took leads from McCain in Ohio, New Mexico, and New Hampshire, and he pulled even in Virginia. Actually, there were two new polls in Virgina, one from Virginia Commonwealth University giving McCain an 8 point lead, and another (centering around the same date) from Survey USA giving Obama a 7 point lead. Following the electoral-vote.com algorithm, I'm taking the most recent state poll and averaging it with any other polls from within the same week.

Compared with last week, Clinton has now taken leads in Missouri, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and North Carolina(!), so she is now ahead in enough states by enough margins that sampling error alone wouldn't cause her to lose the general election based on the most recent state polls.

Obviously this is Clinton's best showing since I've been tracking this, and Obama's winning percentage also matches his best (although three weeks ago his average electoral vote average was higher, mainly because back then the most recent Texas poll showed just a 1 point lead for McCain, so Obama would win it about 1/3 of the time in the model; now the most recent Texas poll, from May 7th, gives McCain a 9 point lead, guaranteeing him the state in this simulation).

Once the Democratic primary fight ends, I'd expect a bounce for the nominee, although given the tone of the campaign, I think Obama would get a larger one than Clinton would. The current data support the idea that either candidate is in good shape right now, and that McCain is vulnerable.

Please indulge a quick story before I come to a point...it will make sense.  

I come from a proudly Democratic branch of an overwhelmingly Republican extended family.  When I was growing up, Thanksgiving was the event that would bring the family together every year, and in even-numbered years the conversation always turned to the recent election.  
In 1988 I was 10, but my parents were very strong supporters of Michael Dukakis.  We know how that turned out.  At Thanksgiving dinner later that November, several of my uncles were salivating at the chance to rub my father's nose in the results of the election.
As soon as we arrived, they sauntered over and said, "so what did you think about the election?"  My father surprised them by saying he was delighted.
"Why?" they asked.
"Well," dad continued, "George Bush said that he was going to reduce violent crime, clean up Boston Harbor and balance the federal budget - all without raising taxes.  That sounds great to me."
My uncles were a bit taken aback by this naive comment. They didn’t say anything for a minute then one of them chortled - "You actually believed him?"
Dad ended the conversation with: "Didn’t you? You voted for him?"
I tell this story because I really like it, and because it informs my opinions about who gets my vote.  I will never, like my uncles did, vote for a candidate that I know is lying to me.  There are always a number of platitudes that a candidate must utter in a campaign, but I look for the candidate that does it less, and does it reluctantly.
Furthermore, I give extra credit for a candidate that utters a truth that they know will be politically damaging, just for the mere fact that it is true.  In this season, there were three candidates who fit this bill from my perspective:
1.  Ron Paul - Don’t get me wrong, this guy is crazy, and other than his position on the war (sort of) I can't think of a single thing he said that I agree with, but was there ever a moment where you thought he was lying?  Crazy and dead wrong, sure - but not dishonest.
2.  Joe Biden - Very simply, I don’t think Joe Biden gives a s#%t if you agree with him, or if what he says is popular.  He calls them like he sees them, and I like him for that.
3.  Barack Obama - He not only tells the truth, but he relishes it.  He tells more truth than he needs to.  He could have gone along with the gas tax holiday, and it would have been safer politically, but he told the truth, and screamed it from the rooftops.  He could have simply disavowed Jeremiah Wright at his first opportunity, but he told more truth than he needed to, and really added something to the discussion on race in this country.

As you think about who will get your vote, or as you look back on who you voted for, ask yourself how many times they lied to you - How many times did you have to justify your candidate's words by thinking "they have to say things like that if they want to win."

Maybe they don't.  Maybe if they tell the truth, they can win anyway.  I hope Barack proves me right.

Its amazing how many Obama haters on line  sound exactly like any 5 minutes of the Rush or Hannity shows.

There is a reason those radio guys are  a 24-7 Obama hate fest. They hope to destroy him now because they know how easy it will be to get Hillary next. All they have on Obama is Wright and Ayers, and they fear the guilt by association will wear thin by November. Hillary, on the other hand, they have 16 years worth of ammo for.

Clearly Hillary, grasping at straws to keep herself afloat, will accept the help of these wing nuts. But any Democrat parroting the same lines as Limbaugh would have to be drunk to believe he would ever do anything to help the Democrats win. The Repugs know Hillary starts with 50% negatives that are deeply ingrained. They fear that one day people will figure out that its kind of silly to believe a half white guy raised by a white family is a racist, or that he's a muslim, or that the name his Daddy picked 40 years ago is relevant to anything. Next, they might figure out the lobby types Hillary and McCain have been worshipping their entire careers are the real  reason nothing good gets done in DC, and a president not beholden to them, one who gets his money from regular folks, might actually work for the people instead of the corporations. Thats why they must destroy Obama now.

These guys are pros at getting blue collar types to vote against their best interests, which is why their jobs got exported and their sons get sent to this illogical war.    Their deepest fear is that Obama, with his easy smile and non-threatening manner will convince poor whites that they have more in common with democrats than with 100 million dollar Cindy who makes 5 million a year by just existing. 

Barack's supporters get called Obamabots, but I have  to see them support the party of big oil, fend for yourself health insurance and send our jobs to China to make the stuff at Wal-Mart cheaper.   Seriously. Think gas would be $4 a gallon if Bush hadn't ripped middle east peace to shreds because his neocon buddies thought it would be easy and fun to start  Democracy? After seeing how wrong the Republicans have been, and what a mess they have made of  the world, why do so many still obey Limbaugh's marching orders? Its got to be more than the fact that Obama's ex-preacher said some things as wacky as what Hagee preaches.

Guess what. Rush and Hannity can afford $20 gas. And if they can again con blue collars into voting against their best interests because they think Obama's ex preacher hates America, $20 gas may be the least of our problems.

Cross-posted at http://politicaldissonance.blogspot.com/

Senator Hillary Clinton reminded us that the 40th anniversary of Robert Kennedy's assassination is coming up on June 6th. In the midst of a bruising battle with Eugene McCarthy, Kennedy looked to have finally clinched the popular vote after the California primary, only to be killed by a deranged youth. It was a tragic end to the life of the politician who had come out so forcefully against "the mindless menace of violence".

I found Clinton's comments about Kennedy's death to be offensive, while I understand that she was not hoping for Senator Barack Obama to be hurt. The more important point is to remember that Kennedy, for a short time, managed to create a vision of justice and a coalition of hope that still inspires people today.

Senator Ted Kennedy summed up his brother's life best during his eulogy at St. Patrick's Cathedral after his death:

My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it. Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world. As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

For a recording of the full speech, you can go here.

We should honor Robert Kennedy's legacy by thinking about how the likely Democratic nominee matches up to these standards and create lasting coalition that will allow us to dream a bit more.

This is what all the smart people, it seems,  are missing. McCain lovers point out he barely knew Hagee, so can't be held to his whacky beliefs, while Obama bashers say  "20 years in the pew Barry" must remain welded to Rev Wright's most controversial thoughts.

But this ignores the fact that the basic defense supporters make for both Wright and Hagee is identical.

Rev Hagee says he prays, and God's will is revealed to him. He believes  God wants Israel united, so the Messiah can return. Revelations tells him God sent the hunter, Hitler, to chase the Jews there, because once they control both sides of the Jordan river, the end times will come.   If nuking Iran speeds things up, then bring it on. Hagee believes God hates sin and sinners like Homos must be punished, hence Katrina.

How is this any stranger than Rev Wright saying God will damn America for its sins,  like Indian genocide, Slavery and Jim Crow, CIA Assasinations like Diem, proping up dictators like the Shah, torture, and tens of thousands dead in Iraq for no good reason?

Both men pray, read the bible and preach what their God leads them to say.  Evangelicals call it Prophetic preaching, the exact same words Wright's backers use in his defense.

Now Hagee is on TV several times a day. Do we think the millions who listen to him share his views, which critics label anti catholic, anti-gay, and pro Israel because it brings the rapture closer? 

Now that Hagee has helped McCain beat the Evangelical Mike Huckabee, he has called Hagee's comments crazy.  Obama  has likewise denounced all of Wright's controversial views. Critcs see both moves as cynically political.

Now the logical thing for the nation to conclude is that "preachers can be led to say a lot of whacky stuff, thats why the founders put in all that stuff about seperation of church and state."

People who attend church have all sorts of releationships with their pastors. Some hear the whacky stuff as metaphor, others believe it literally. Millions including Hannity and O'Reily stuck around and defended the Catholic church, because they know some screwed up priests don't define the church, even if the Bishops and the Vatican failed to protect their children.   No one would accuse those Catholics of approving of the crimes their leaders covered up. We cut them some slack, and pray their church gets it together and keeps doing the good things Catholics do.

Sadly, few will grant Obama's church the same slack. This will not happen, because for now, Wright is the only smoking gun his opponents have. It lets the Limbaughs repeated say "racist preacher = scary black guy candidate whites can't trust". They will bring him up every chance they get. McCain even managed to get a Wright jab in while denouncing Hagee.

Personally, I believe the relationship between any person and his church or preacher is none of my business.  There is no religion that people of some other faith don't think is crazy. Many Christians believe billions of non believers will burn in hell. Most of those billions don't even think hell exists. Radical Islam wants to slay all non-believers. I don't agree with any of them, but as long as they are not violent or threatening, I defend their right to believe it.   

I personally pray for a world that lets anybody believe anything, as long as they leave evryone who disagrees with them alone.   This political season, America seems to be headed in the opposite direction.

Interesting poll observations....

The day after a Quinnipiac University poll of Ohio and two other battleground states showed several bad signs for Sen. Barack Obama, a new poll indicates a much brighter outlook for the Illinois Democrat. Quinnipiac had Obama losing by 4 points to Sen. John McCain; now, SurveyUSA shows Obama beating the Arizona Republican by 9.

In stark contrast to the university's survey, today's poll shows Obama winning among both white and male voters. He also comes within 4 points of McCain in crucial southeast Ohio; Quinnipiac had Obama losing by 20 in that area (although the polls may not be defining the region in quite the same way).

Read more here

I spent the day at the Democratic State Convention here in Vermont. I, myself was not a delegate, but I came with my friend, who was a state delegate. Senator Patrick Leahy was there, as was Congressman Peter Welch. The entire thing was an interesting and exciting experience for me, as it was the first state convention I've ever been to. But something really caught my attention at the end, when the two speakers for Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took to the stage.

First, in support of Hillary Clinton, former VT Governor Madeleine Kunin. I have a lot of respect for her, and it was exciting to hear her speak, even if she was speaking in support of Clinton. But I was very put-off by much of her justification for why she supports Hillary. I found that a lot of her justification was that "it would be beautiful to see a woman place her hand on the bible instead of holding it for her husband." Not a direct quote, I'm going on memory here. Why was I put-off? Because, Hillary's candidacy was brought down to no more than her sex. Yes, Kunin mentioned how intelligent she is, and how hard-working she is. But her main point was that Hillary is a woman. She then, at the very end, repeated words that Hillary had spoke saying something along the lines of, "No matter who's the nominee, Hillary will do everything she can to see that a Democratic is in the White House." Not to mention her own calls and pleas to see MI and FL seated.

The entire speech sounded like a desperate plea to voters. I understand why she makes the arguments she does, why she used the talking points she did, but honestly, it made me a little sad. Sad for Hillary Clinton, that things had been reduced to what they are.

Then, the speaker for Obama took the stage: Former Chairman to the DNC Joe Andrew took to the stage. The entire speech was entirely different. Rather than a plea of support for his candidate, he spent his time talking about unity, and unifying the party. He talked about, no matter who you support, coming together in November to beat John McCain. It was energized, enthusiastic, and certainly optimistic. It was interrupted briefly when Mr. Andrew made a remark about (if I remember correctly) how a candidate needs to be able to inspire people, and a Hillary supporter called out "HILLARY!" I'm all for supporting one's candidate, but honestly, during Governor Kunin's speech, no one rudely interrupted in such a way. What made it even worse was the fact that Mr. Andrew was making the point to be fair, even giving Hillary praise, barely ever specifying a candidate by name, but rather, focusing on the need for a Democrat (generally) in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.

I realized from this that Hillary really is done, and it was obvious in the somber, unenthusiastic and desperate tone of Governor Kunin's speech. I honestly think it was the first time I actually felt even slightly bad for Hillary. The feeling didn't last thanks to the gracious Hillary supporter.

She could always nominate her husband if she won. Can't beat THAT name recognition....

It has pained me to watch Sean Wilentz act like such a tool during this election year, because I really admire his historical works.  ("Chants Democratic" and "The Rise of American Democracy" are both well worth reading.)  He has accused Barack Obama of playing the race card when his opponents launched controversial personal attacks, while blaming the Senator from Illinois for his inability to win over certain voters.  (Those would be the mysterious "white working class" we hear so much about, who supported Obama in Wisconsin and Oregon but not in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states.)  His latest salvo in the Huffington Post -- "Barack Obama and the Unmaking of the Democratic Party" -- reaches all the way back to 1828 to show why Obama is going to ruin everything.  In the process, he fails to explain the roots of the real forces at work here: white solidarity, anti-intellectualism, and racism.

Wilentz points to the 1828 battle between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams as a formative moment, when white working class support became essential to the success of the Democratic Party.  Almost in spite of himself, Old Hickory became the face for a broader  movement aimed at breaking down barriers to opportunity, liberalizing business and politics, which also happened to be a movement that both aspiring capitalists and frustrated workers (i.e. all white men) could get behind.  Businessmen wanted to be able to get easy credit to develop the West, and they wanted to overturn laws that required them to obtain approval for each new corporate charter from legislatures.  Workingmen wanted to end all property qualifications for voting, and supported the idea that ordinary people could serve in government jobs -- a policy that Jackson embraced in office, developing the "spoils system" of handing out positions to party supporters.  The working people were also facing the loss of autonomy and economic security as industrialization began to get underway.  Jackson became the vehicle for many different economic, social and political aspirations in those days, helping to invent modern, democratic party politics.  With a rapidly expanding economy and an opening political system, white men could rally together behind the banner of equality and opportunity that the Democratic Party raised.  Instead of pitting working man versus business man, all classes of white men could band together against different foes.   A lot of inchoate resentments and grievances solidified in the support of the self-made man Jackson, and naturally opposed the stuffy old-money Bostonian intellectual, Adams.

Richard Hofstadter touched on this curious combination in his essay, "Andrew Jackson and the Rise of Liberal Capitalism," in which he wryly notes that Jackson, the frontier aristocrat who defended the
creditors in Tennessee, became the hero of debtors a few years later.  (Hofstadter also wrote a whole book on the history of anti-intellectualism in American history.)

It's easy to say it all goes back to populist Jackson against the know-it-all snob Adams, but it goes much deeper.  The earlier Federalists thought the people who knew best should run the show, while Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republicans were the ones who praised the wisdom of the common yeoman, creating the embryo of a partisan patronage system (the idea that any ordinary person could serve in government, which Jackson embraced).  It was a debate left over from the Revolution, when many felt that a republic could only work if the leading citizens, the gentry, were in charge.  Jefferson's people gradually broke down the idea, and Jackson's bunch finished it off.  

Wilentz is right that this pattern goes back a long way.  What drives me crazy is that he takes such a high hand as a historian (know-it-all elitist!) and schools us that Obama is going to destroy the Democratic party because he can't win the same electoral map as Jackson did in 1828.  "Without the votes of workers and small farmers in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a strong Democratic turnout in New York City," he writes, "Jackson would have lost the Electoral College in a landslide."  So what if Obama could not win the same coalition that a Democrat summoned in 1828?  You might as well say Jackson's victory was illegitimate because he couldn't win Alaska or New Mexico!

This determination of his to show how important the "white working class" is for the Democratic Party is understandable.  His insistence that they (however defined) are the only group that matters, and that racism played absolutely no role in this campaign, is truly perplexing.  He knows as well as anyone where the historical roots of racism lie: in the fear of competition for scarce jobs and small wages, in the deliberate pitting of workers of different races against each other on shop floors and across picket lines.  "All of the evidence demonstrates that white racism has not been a principal or even secondary motivation in any of this year's Democratic primaries," Wilentz maintains, ignoring the fact that most people are reluctant to come out and say, "I'm a bigot!" -- and the fact that a quarter of voters in West Virginia and Kentucky actually admitted that "race" affected their choice of candidate.  I agree that allegations of racism have been thrown around too lightly during this campaign, but Wilentz seems to react to this unfortunate fact by denying that racism played any role -- just as some Obama supporters (a small minority, as far as I can tell) try to argue that sexism played no role in the problems of Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps a tradition of anti-elitism or anti-intellectualism has shaped voters' decisions in some of these contests.  When Bill Clinton said the real division in the election is between the regular people and those who think they're better than everyone else, he was speaking to a powerful current in American politics.  This phenomenon certainly does go back to 1828 and beyond.  Maybe we can admit to ourselves, no matter which candidate we support, that there is some good old-fashioned racism going on here too.  In any case, it is just plain wrong to look at an underdog candidate, who managed to build a winning coalition that crosses lines of race and region, campaigning in the face of the biggest political machine in Democratic politics, and blame him for his lack of support in one segment of the electorate in the context of a primary.  It is far wronger still to accuse him of single-handedly shattering the 180-year legacy of a political party by achieving that victory.

See Wilentz's side of the story at:

"Race Man"

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

""Barack Obama and the Unmaking of the Democratic Party"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-wilentz/barack-obama-and-the-unma_b_103353.html

When Hillary finally concedes the primary election, the Obama campaign will turn a laser-like focus to a single goal: getting Obama elected in November. If cold political calculation suggests that Clinton as VP would give him the most help, she will be chosen. No one - least of all in anyone in the Obama campaign - will suggest that any grudges from the primary season should stand in the way of maximizing Obama's chance of electoral success. The question, then, is whether she would be the VP candidate who would most help Obama.
Clinton's strongest positive is her talent for campaigning, particularly for her ability to counterattack. She could be the person to answer the Republican attack machine as it turns on Obama. One can imagine a campaign where Clinton and McCain engage in ever more vicious attacks and counterattacks, while Obama can stay above the fray, acting Presidential, promising (and delivering) a new kind of politics. Hillary is doubtless capable of truly knocking old man McCain completely off his bearings.
Clinton's negatives include her strong negative ratings with many voters, the baggage she carries from the past two decades in politics, and her unpredictable spouse.
Also, it is said that the one function a VP candidate serves, in the end, is to deliver her/his state for the ticket. NY is safely Democratic, so other candidates offer more to Obama in this regard.
However, considering how negative Presidential campaigns have become, Hillary's talent at attacking ruthlessly may end up being the determining factor for Obama campaign strategists.

During an interview with Radio Isla Puerto Rico on Saturday, Obama reacted to the Clinton comment.

According to a quote released by the campaign, he said, "I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here. Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/23/clinton.comments/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps Hillary will return the favor one day. Time and time again he provides her with a save harbor when she screws up. I would like to see her take the hight road and stay on it, just once, possibly twice.

Has anyone else noticed a sudden increase in semi-articulate posts raving about the downfall of the Democratic party--or blatantly (and not even cleverly) bashing either one of the dem candidates or the other candidate's supporters? A quick background check shows many of these to be the work of mystery posters, with no profiles and no posting histories. In the interest of maintaining the integrity of the site, perhaps we should refrain from comments to these posts? (I rue the day I long for BillyGlad!)

Something like six weeks ago, in the run up to the ohio primary, Jeremiah Wright's sermons hit the press. People were offended; Hillary Clinton was heard observing that if she'd been in the church that day, she'd have walked out and quit the congregation.

Yet by Kentucky, the next state over and barely a month later, Wright's 'offensive' belief--that the game is rigged and they ain't gonna let a black man win it--has become Hillary Clinton's campaign. And no one notices or cares.

Which all goes to show: with Wright, it wasn't what he said, its that a black man said it.

For many ardent Hillary Clinton supporters a glimpse of Senator Clinton lights up the faces, broadens the smiles and her words seep through the ears filling hearts well, with honey.
 
We get it!!!!  But again we don't really get it!!! But that's okay.

But for others, what was your threshold for Hillary and when did the it break inviting a mutiny of ampersand and asterisks to clog in your throats?

Here are some possible moments when the nerve broke...

Change you can xerox...

Shame on you Barack Obama....

As far as I know...

Do you need a pillow...

Well he wouldn't be my pastor....

Tim, we shouldn't just denounce but reject....

Senator McCain and I have passed the C-in-C threshold...

White Collar voters...

RFK was assisinated in June....

I'm sure I'm missing dozens of Hillary Kitchen Sink moments that made blood gush through the veins and stain your face with color...when did you say that's it.

To all of you in the press who have nothing to do but beat up on a former first lady's comments who herself has had secret service protecting her for doing good works for our country, you need to get a real story. Stop making mountains out of molehills. People are truly sick of CNNand msnbC AND THERE BIASED REPORTING. Get over being in the tank for Obama. If he wins he will not be a good president,so save your breath. He's not worth it. The RN'S Iam in contact with feel you are not concerned enough about an important constituency in this race WOMAN. sOME DAY YOU WILL ALL NEED ONE WHETHER IT'S IN THE HOME, HOSPITAL, WHITE HOUSE,ETC. So our advice to you all who keep picking on the woman candidate is to knock it off. There was no malice in her comment and you all know it too. Read this one on your blog Mr. Cafferty, not the ones that are biased against HRC.

Warning: DoD May Change URLs, thwarting TPM
The Department of Defense (DoD) has changed URLfor documents on the military analyst program. The Department of Defense released to the NYT and public emails and other documents related to the military analyst program in response to a NYT FOIA request.New York Times' David Barstow is involved with this analysis and reporting. 
It is not obvious the problem is with the URL. Some readers may believe they cannot view a document because of an error with the analysis; or the DoD site has excessive traffic. This may not be the case.

Any saved URLs or URLs posted to public blogs may or may not be valid. Earlier analysis with original URLs, without an auto-connect feature, are no longer valid. 

One objective of information warfare is to thwart others from getting access to information, not just provide invalid information. The White House has not commented on how these changes may or may not relate to efforts to thwart enforcement of the laws of war. The public should ask for White House, State Department, NSC, DoD, DOJ OLC, and outside counsel emails and notes discussing how the public might be thwarted from getting access to information about this military analyst program.
White House Involved With DoD Military Analysts

The disclosed emails are damaging to the President. The emails show the White House, Rove, State Department, CIFA, and National Security Council are linked to the Military Analyst program. See 120

Some of the URLs have been updated on the DoD website.   Without an auto-connect feature from the original (now invalid) URL to the new (updated, valid) URL, it is difficult for TPM readers to easily see the documents showing the White House connection to the military analysts.

Previous commentary establishing the link between the President, White House, and the DoD military analysts includes now-invalid URLs.
For example, one original URL had spaces, but the new URL for the same document no longer has the spaces. The spaces in the original (now invalid) URL are represented by %20. It is difficult for most people to manually remove the %20 from the original URL to connect to the updated URL
Inadequate DoD Explanation
Without mentioning the URL changes or deletions, the DoD website states, in very small font at the bottom:

This page was last updated on: 

Friday, 23-May-08 23:38:48

DoD's failure to explain the changes may suggest to the court a bad faith effort to interfere with public oversight and subsequent discovery. 
Some analysis links to original the DoD urls. The new URLs mean the original links are no longer valid, unless DoD provides an auto-connect feature from the content with the original URLs to the current URL.

White House: DoD Analysts and Guantanamo Emails
Using other documents the ACLU obtained, it's possible to understand some of the military analyst-related emails. ACLU data show a memo involving prisoner abuse from a Navy Commander at 1377 is the same officer at 119 . 1379 shows Plexico's name and illustrates some of the background discussions McClellan was having to respond to prisoner abuse questions.
The changes to the DoD URLs makes the analysis and comparison difficult. Congress and the NYT will have to update their saved URLs, and this will complicate fact checking, discovery, and oversight.
Going Forward
The New York Times through the court should seek an explanation from the White House and DoD why the URLs for the FOIA response changed. DoD should discuss with Congress, the court and NYT whether it is or is not unwilling to make these changes, or provide an easy method to connect to the original FOIA documents using the originally-released DoD URLs.

Congress is encouraged to review these DoD actions in light of the standards of comity. It remains unclear what action the NYT may take under FOIA to ensure DoD fully discloses the content, and explains the reasons it is not substantially complying with the Court Order.

DoD should provide a clear change page showing the exact changes to URLs, and changes in identifying information to each linked document. Where the URL title has changed, DoD should provide a copy of the original URL, and a copy of the updated URL. This reconciliation table should be provided to the NYT and available to Congress in letter.
The DoD-change page should also state which specific dates on documents have changed. DoD should explain why the dates on key URLs have been changed. If there are no changes, DoD should report in writing to the court that there are no changes to the URLs, the reference dates, or any summary table available for public inspection.
DoD should provide an auto-connect feature from the original URL (with spaces).  Until DoD make these changes, the public should discuss whether DoD is deliberately changing DoD URLs to thwart access to the information, or make it difficult to understand findings in earlier analysis.

Next Steps
Where there are URL errors, TPM readers are encouraged others to examine the original URLs, noting the numbers of the URL which correspond to a document date, then find the updated URL at the DoD site. DoD should provide this summary reconciliation table so the public, Congress, outside counsel and prosecutors may easily access the data as the court intended.

Please contact your Members of Congress to inquire whether they have had any concerns about this FOIA response, the DOD website and URL change, or the established White House connection to the DoD military program,

Possible War Crimes Evidence
It remains to be understood how DoD and the White House are changing URLs to deliberately thwart enforcement of the laws of war.
Any commentary you may have about problems getting access to court-ordered DoD disclosures may be important war crimes evidence. This evidence could be important related to allegations of obstruction, jury tampering, intimidation, or deliberate evidence destruction.
It is unclear if DoD may change the URLs again, or revert the new URLs to the old version. Readers are encouraged to retain the original (now invalid) URLs, and not delete them from the original posts, but provide annotations to the updated URLs.

The information you have related to the changed URLs may be important evidence showing a DoD effort to thwart discovery of important information. Please consider retaining your original emails, work products, and other documents with the incorrect URLs. This may be important to show the court the impact of DoD's changed URLs.

I'm no Unity Baby but I got tired about reading blog after blog on Hillary's gaffe, so, why not focus on things that are in the Democrats favor this year? So, without further ado: 10 things Democrats should be for this year:
 1. That George Bush is the anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to crap. His businesses, Iraq, the Justice Department, the economy...you get the drift, I'm sure you could even add to the list.
   2. That the Republicans had the majority in Congress for six years as they helped George Bush run the country into the ground.
  3. That the majority of Republicans have lost their bearings along with John McCain. What principles do they stand for? As far as I can tell they're the Anti-Party. They're against abortion, against gay marriage, against immigration, against taxes, against Mother's Day, and even against a functioning government (this bunch hold the record for the most filibusters, ever). Oh, I just thought of something they are for...torture. But the Torture Party doesn't sound like a winner either.
  4. That Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot become a Vice Presidential nominee unless the Constitution was rewritten.
  5. That Mitt  the Phoney Romney seems to be McCain's best choice for a running mate.
  6. That the electorate is engaged in this election season because they're tired of George Bush.
  7. That the drawn out primary has helped the Democrats set up operations in many of the states and have enthusiastic support from volunteers across the country.
  8. That senior citizens have a problem with John McCain's age. It also helps that he's not sure about whether he supports privatizing Social Security or not. Flip-flop much?
  9. Speaking of flip-flops, McCain has flip-flopped on immigration so many times, Republicans don't trust him and Latino Americans don't trust him either. Notice his support in his own home state is not as strong as it should be.
 10. And most of all, they should be grateful for the rise of the blogosphere and that people have access to all kinds of opinions and don't need to rely on the traditional media.

The story behind Hillary Clinton's comment about June being the month that things tend to happen, assissinations for example, is not about the killing of Obama.  It's about Hillary confessing that's she's LOST this nomination -- UNLESS -- something BAD happens to Barack Obama.

She's admitting that she's begging Supers to hold off endorsing because there's an off chance that Obama will need to drop out or he's hurt in someway.  She's admitting that by DNC rules -- she cannot win.

That's the story here, not the comment itself, because she's said these words before.

The media and the Supers should immediately END this nomination process.  Hillary needs to be forced out, she refuses to otherwise.

Even if you listen to her EXCUSE as to why she must stay in -- she's wrong.  She could have dropped out weeks ago and if something would force Obama to drop out, the DNC would have nominated her as his replacement, simply because of how close she came to winning.

She can drop out gracefully, voters in the next three states can still vote the way they would have.  Nobody's hurt.  But Obama can then concentrate on McCain ONLY.

If she refuses, then Supers need to give Obama the needed 56 to reach that 2026 total before May 31st.

Among my plans for the weekend was to blog about the electoral college math for November.  The title--I had a title ready and everything--was going to be "We Don't Need Her."  I've been playing with electoral college calculators and polling data and, notwithstanding Hillary's insistance that only she can win the big states and the Republican strategists quoted on Politico as saying they think they can pull off a Republican blowout (god, that one's like Idiotic--it just doesn't stop being funny), I've come to the conclusion that the GOP is hosed.  All very interesting stuff.  It was going to be all about Virginia and the states out west of the Mississippi that Obama puts into play and how she doesn't really do anything for us if she's on the ticket. 

Then, late yesterday afternoon, Hillary rendered the whole thing moot, because one of the immutable laws of politics is that trailing presidential candidates who use the word "assassinated" in the answer to the question "why are you still in the race" don't get to be vice president.  Regardless of what you meant, or whether you meant anything, it doesn't matter.  No president wants a morbid veep, especially not one with thousands of aggreived supporters. 

So we've had ourselves a good big ol hissy fight over it, possibly the biggest ever here.  The Clintonites are here gamely defending her comment, insisting that it doesn't mean anything, while the Obama supporters are split between the "revealing Freudian slip" camp, the calculated attempt to instill doubt camp and the "now, now, let's give her yet another break because I'm sure she didn't mean anything about it." But it doesn't matter.  Her veep gambit is over and she knows it and so do Bill her thuggish money people. 

Count me in the Freudian slip camp.  Maybe it was just her subconscience's way of sabotaging the veep talk.  I expect, however, that it truly was a reflection of her real reasons for staying in this long.  Reasons that are much noted and much talked about: anything could happen.  She's been staying in hoping that something would turn up--a big scandal, a career ending gaffe or a genie in a bottle or something.  Anything, really.  Yes, including that. 

Much has already been written, and I'll no doubt write more about myself, but I did want to point out one huge irony about this thing. 

Hillary has been staying in this thing, stretching it out, hanging on, in large part, because she was hoping Obama would utter some huge, career-ending, gaffe before it was all said and done. 

Despite a recent show in the polls [most recent NT Times] showing narrow margin in the overall popular vote by Hillary Clinton to the tune of [ /- error 3% statistically] 5 percentage points over her arch nemesis Barack Obama with 47% of voters considering her, to his  42% with 13% undecided. in light of the most recent foibles on the campaign stump heading toward the big DNC run-off in Denver this fall. Most of the pollsters are showing similar results. Zogby, Barna, Wall Street Journal and the Peer Research Institute are showing shadings of 3%-5% percentage points off the NY Times spot poll. On the Republican side of the isle, John McCain is uncontested, however is either tied with Obama in some polls or what would amount to a statistical dead head in the rest. So, what does this all mean?

Dean told AP back on March, 29th "

Let the media [Pro Obama] and the Republicans and the talking heads on cable television [again Pro Obama] attack and carry on, fulminate at the mouth,"

 said Dean to the Associated Press. "The supporters should keep their mouths shut about this stuff on both sides because that is harmful to the potential victory of a Democrat.", Having spoken that here is where we are: Hillary Clinton holds 1779 delegates to Barack Obama's 1968 pledged delegates. However, the popular vote keeps ebbing more and more toward Obama. Real Clear Politics reports the popular vote for the DNC a notch in favor of Obama reporting Obama at some 49.1% to Clinton's 47.7% - clearly a statistical dead heat. The DNC needs an enema to get to the root of what the situation is here. The party is divided between hard-line progressive on Hillary's side, which include the more socialist of the unions, radical feminists, enviromentalist... and the rest of the social "isms". Obama carries [clearly] the feely crowd, those"feel" America needs hope and change as his stump rhetoric would carry it. Social moderates are split right down the middle between he and McCain, what divides them is their position on the sanctity of life, alternative life style and environmental issues.

Hillary kind of reminds me of the redheaded step child that keeps insisting on having attention thrown her way. Good press or bad press, which is odd - because any morally clear candidate would run from sordid business. But I think Hillary voters and the publican by-in-large have gotten used to her antics, so for what it is worth, the spin cycle seems to work just fine on the Clinton machine so why change what people wouldn't trust as change anyway - that sentiment by the people would be fully earned. All indicators point toward a show down between the Jr. Senator from Illinois, and the veteran Senator from Arizona. Both have issues currently, some more severe than others.

Obama was speaking at a rather conservative Synagogue in Florida on the 22nd of this month, Obama took his happy-happy, joy-joy show on the road down there, and [well...] ended up contradicting himself regarding his position on meeting with Hezbolah or other terrorist entities within his first year in office if he were elected. He voiced this rather appeasist sentiment during the debates, and now is looking like he regrets heading to Florida. His statements got a good deal of mileage with conservative talk radio for a couple of days,  hosts such as Michael Medved and the respected Mark Styne had at him as well, but it seems no sticks it to themselves better than Obama himself.  In the McCain camp - John McCain withdrew his acceptance of support from Pastor John Hagee - move that may come back to haunt him, he is already on thin ice with Evangelicals as it is; especially over comments from a sound byte that were not played in their entirety and spun. Even talk show host Michael Medved [who being Jewish himself] found it hard to have taken the comments out of context, unlike Jeremiah Wrights words which in no way could be confused with benevolence.

The road may be rocky, but it looks as though super delegates are lining up behind a power broker nut-fest with the DNC, some heads will roll, but that is what they get for even setting up such a dastardly system - designed for leverage, but look what is happening? It will boil down to a Obama vs. McCain show down this November, and Hillary should not think she is above being voted out If there is anythign New Yorkers have is a memory - and that they can use against her.

It's time for leaders to lead in the Democratic party. Superdelegates should stand up and pick their candidate. Most will pick Senator Obama, and most of them already know that they will. Moreover, superdelegates should act this week. May 31st is when the DNC rules committee meets to work on the issue of seating the Florida and Michigan superdelegates. If current undecided superdelegates remain undeclared and the outcome of the primary process remains unclear, this will give the Obama camp every reason to fight hard against an unfair ex post facto seating decision that ignores the previous rules and favors Senator Clinton. However, if enough superdelegates move this week behind Obama, he can safely go into this meeting and be exceedingly generous and gracious. The goal could be to in the end either seat everybody along the lines of the popular vote (assuming the non-Clinton votes go to Obama in MI - as they should) or at least seat a higher percentage of delegates than the Republicans agreed to seat in penalizing those states in their contest (i.e. something greater than 50%). The larger goal is to neutralize any argument Republicans can use to say that Democrats ripped off their voters in dealing with this problem. Superdelegates should see that they have it in their power to make a big difference in the general election result by endorsing this week. Those who are arguing that they want to wait until all the primaries are done are being penny wise, pound foolish. As much as we care about them, the voters in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota will not play as big a role in the general election as those in Michigan and Florida will.

Part I: The DoD Email Linked To Rove's Legal Team and Correspondence to Congress

Page 107 and 111 show the same law firm as listed on the letter to Congressman Conyers. 

Legal counsel with the firm are reported to have disclosed Rove's involvement with specific meetings, not just those in conjunction with the military analysts. The White House, NSC, State Department, and other White House-connected personnel are also involved at 120.

The name of the law firm is on the letter head to the Judiciary Committee; and he email format and address match those provided through the DoD FOIA.  The Major General listed on page 111 has contact information matching the same Rove's law firm counsel wrote to  Conyers. The firm's name also matches contact information on page 107 of the DoD emails.

These issues may or may not relate to war crimes issues, punishable by the death penalty. The DoD emails show the interaction between counsel and the government was not a narrow legal-advisory role.

Not all attorney communications are protected. In this case, some of the law firms communications appear to have been sent to non-represented parties, falling outside this exception. Counsel is foreseeably subject to discovery on all communications between counsel-affiliated persons, the US government, DoD and the White House.

Questions About Legal Counsel Motivations

Legal counsel to the President's chief political strategist  appeared to feign confusion about various Judiciary Committee actions. Rove's legal team is connected with the DoD military analyst program. Counsel is prohibited from engaging in frivolous action which might delay a tribunal. Karl Rove's legal counsel should first ask the questions raised in the letter to their inhouse experts.

Telecommunications Connection

The law firm is one of the "Capital Club sponsors" for the inaugural National, hosted by Tiger Woods. The telecommunications company connected with that golfing activity is none other than the firm connected alleged FISA violations.

With the law firm is a relative of a former Chairman of a major political party, not the DNC.

Discovery

It is beyond dispute Rove was involved with the military analyst program. The question turns on what information outside counsel have, how they intend to use this information. The connection between Rove's law firm and the DoD military analyst activity raises many issues:

- A. What role did the military analysts play in providing information to legal counsel to advise on which documents to prevent war crimes prosecutors and State AGs from reviewing?

- B. Are outside counsel asking through the White House and FBI questions of jury member to gather information from jury members because they do not want to spend funds conducting mock juries for war crimes cases?

- C. To what extent are law firms invoking "executive privilege" to shield communications between their clients and contractors allegedly involved with war crimes, FISA violations, and illegal activity?

- D. To what extent are counsels claims  (at C) trumped by the fraud crime exception? 445 F.3d 266

Law Firm Has Government-Recognized Experts Which Can Answer Counsel Questions of Congress

Rove's legal counsel in a letter to Congressman Conyers raised several questions. The DoD emails show the names of people connected with the firm who have experience in government. Counsel has not provided adequate assurances that they have exhausted in house experience before documenting their supposed confusion in writing to Congress.

Counsel states (repeatedly) in the letter:

"I do not understand why"

and/or

"It was hard to see"

One of the law firm-connected names in the DoD emails represents themselves as an expert on federal grants. Yet counsel's letter to the judiciary would ask that we believe their assertion they are confused about why Congress is or isn't asking questions. Usually when someone provides assistance to a law firm about federal government funding, they know why that same government would do things. This appears to be lost on counsel.

Counsel should internally review the comments of the military analysts who can explain to counsel how Congress works, why Congress does things, and the motivation of the President to spread information from the US government to the Congress.

When counsel learns to answer their own questions using available resources, perhaps the American public might take seriously their readiness to provide a f ull and complete defense to clients for alleged war crimes policy making, propaganda, and other illegal activity.

FOIA On Outside Counsel

Counsel's name is on the DoD list. This could mean that counsel is not an independent  legal advisor, but might be a defendant.  Because the DoD emails show the name of the law firm, it is forseeable counsel could be subject to discovery. It cannot be argued these emails from the law firm are related to attorney-client privilege.

The emails in question are not about legal representation, but in disclosed communications between the law firm and the DoD military analyst program. We have no record that the law firm represents any of the media our public information outlets. However, if counsel would like to invoke a claim of attorney-client privilege on DoD-related emails to the media, counsel will have to explain why they are providing "independent" assessments but shielding all communications behind those supposedly "independent" views.

Counsel cannot have it both ways: Either:

A. They are independent of the media and the emails --  between client-connected person and the US government and media -- can be subject to discovery for public disclosure; or

B. The analysts connected with this firm are not independent, and their communications are related to legal discussions connected with the White House and other matters of public interest, possibly falling under the crime-fraud exception, 445 F.3d 266.

Part II: Reconsidering Counsel's Letter To Judiciary Chairman

The letter fails to justify confidence that any assertion of a "false accusation" should be taken seriously. Because the client was never an attorney, the client was never a party to any legally recognized claim of privilege. The Constitution grants immunity to Members of Congress to be absolutely immune to anything they say. This delegation of immunity does not exist on issues of alleged jury tampering, malicious prosecution, retaliation against prosecutors, or war crimes policy making.

The question turns on whether legal counsel has or has not engaged in any frivolous or dilatory action or material misrepresentations before the tribunal. That remains on the table.  The above information suggests counsel has a motivation in delaying Congressional action on many fronts: FISA, POW abuse, attorney firings, and the DoD analyst program. A reasonable accommodation would be for outside counsel to come clean: Do you intend to defend your client, but not explain why your law firm is connected with the alleged propaganda connected with your client?

The "gratuitous confrontation" (counsel's words) started when the client and others connected with outside counsel allegedly agreed to put the Constitution, FISA, and Geneva Conventions second to Presidential orders.

Perhaps counsel's outside military advisers may wish to remind the law firm the House and Senate are separate chambers, not connected, nor are they obliged to wait for one before acting. As the framers intended, this understandably complicates counsel's legal strategies.

The only obligation on the table is for the Congress to show a good faith effort to work with the President. That legal obligation does not exist in re your client. The Judiciary does not like to mediate between Congress and the President: The branches are co-equal. Counsel's assertion that Congress should or should not do anything is not a power the People delegated to any legal counsel. Your letter has no force.

The President may not invoke "executive privilege" through a former adviser. That assertion must be invoked by the President, not outside counsel working for a different client. Until you provide a document showing you do represent the President, your assertions about one client are unrelated to the sole Article II power delegated to the Executive Branch. That branch, as you well know, is headed by a single clerk the Constitution calls, "President."

The question is not whether the client was or was not a former employee of the United States government, nor whether he was an adviser to the President -- he was -- but whether that association would shield him absolutely. It does not. The client was not hired to provide legal advice to the President in an official or private capacity.

I am more than slightly amused at the predicament that Hillary finds herself in following her assassination comment, even though I don't find her comment that troubling.  It seems a bit of karmic payback to see her insisting that her comments were misinterpreted after she had deliberately and misleadingly taken Obama's "cling to guns" comment out of context and hammered it home for her political gain.  Obama was clearly talking about why certain voters (hard-working white Americans in Hillary's parlance) would vote against their own economic self interest and how the Right exploited this election after election.  Any adult would look past the particular words to get the full contextual meaning of Obama's response.  Hillary, wearing her Rove hat, latched onto "cling" and "bitter" and twisted their meaning within Obama's response for her political gain.  Now the shoe is in the other mouth.  I don't for a second believe that Hillary is waiting to see if Obama gets offed before the convention.  I do find it amusing to watch her squirm a bit as she fights against the same tactic she employed.  What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I’ve read and watched the same reactions to Senator Clinton’s rationale for staying in this race as you have. I’m sure you’ve seen the video of Senator Clinton’s reference to RFK’s assassination and the lengthy primary he participated in. What troubled me was not her thoughts, but the reaction to them.

There have been swift and strong denunciations of her remarks. Keith Olbermann, whom I typically sympathize with, blasted the Senator and insinuated that she is staying in the race because she thinks she could be the nominee if Barack Obama dies by an assassin’s bullet. The implication being clear: Hillary Clinton’s ambition overrides any sense of decency or dignity. For many who dislike the Clintons, this was the coup de grace, the one incident where it became apparent to everyone that she was Lady Macbeth. 

I couldn’t disagree more. First, if ambition is a fault no politicians should have, then we could not have a government. It is the belief that they deserve to be the most powerful people in the world that drives all presidential candidates. I cannot fault Senator Clinton for this because I would be judging her with a different standard than her opponents. 

Many of you are with me on this point, but you argue that her ambition is so strong that it overrides her judgment over what is right or wrong. This explains her vote for war in Iraq and her reasons for continuing the campaign, you say. This is a reasonable view, and one I’ve pondered, if not embraced, numerous times in the last few years. but this is a trait that has appeared in all American politicians since the republic’s inception. What makes political theater so compelling is the never-ending battle between individual beliefs and the insatiable hunger for power that is often quenched by the dead carcasses of those convictions. Historians, pundits and citizens view this typically as a Manichean struggle where vice or virtue wins. For example: FDR was virtuous, while Nixon was evil. This conclusion ignores that masses of Japanese Americans who were unjustly deprived of their rights and freedom when they were placed in prison camps during World War II or the fact that Nixon pushed for universal healthcare and better diplomatic relations with China and Russia. 

Reality is more nuanced than that. Hillary Clinton is both deceptive and decent. What makes her so intriguing is that she is not a natural politician, in the sense that she cannot conceal her darker side from the public as her husband, Kennedy or Roosevelt could. As a result, the better part of her nature is overshadowed and not seen by much of the public. She is simply seen as a calculating villain, Don John to Obama’s Don Pedro in Much Ado about Nothing. 

But painting her this way is an injustice. She wants universal healthcare because she empathizes with the sick and the poor. She wants to end the war in Iraq because she doesn’t want to see men and women die in an unjust war, even though she voted to begin it, an action she probably regrets for its effect on thousands of families as much as, if not more than, the effect it has had on her own career. I don’t doubt the woman’s convictions because I recognize her calculations. It’s just easier sometimes to see the latter rather than the former. 

Which brings me back to her recollection of the 1968 campaign. When asked whether this primary’s length would hurt the democrats’ chances in November, she recalled two historical examples to make the point that it’s not unprecedented for a primary to continue into June. It’s as simple as that. There is no ulterior motive revealed by this thought, no calculation shown that should be condemned. 

We often vilify our politicians, journalists and fellow man for ambition, calculation, bad pictures or ill chosen words and then complain if the same ridiculous standard is used against us or people we support. We add gasoline to the very fire that has burned us so badly. I hope this post will inspire whoever reads this to douse that fire with the cool waters of reason and open-mindedness. 

And just in case you question my objectivity and dismiss this as an equivocation on the part of a Clinton supporter, I want you to know I voted for Senator Obama, in no small part because I thought his candidacy was a break from the petty simplification that’s paralyzed so many efforts to solve the problems we face. I hope Senator Obama, as well as his most fervent supporters, remain faithful to that as he pursues the most powerful position in the world. After all, the room should not change your voice ... your voice should change the room. 

Ok.  I could write for days on the inappropriateness of Hillary's "assanitation" reference.  Yes, it shows how calculating she might be.  Yes, it shows that she is a poor general election candidate.  Yes, it shows that she cannot make an decent apology under any circumstance.  But, what about the effects of the comment on one Michelle Obama? 

While Barack represents a great opprotunity for this country to move forward in many ways, he is much more than that to Michelle.  Before he was a presidential candidate he was her husband and father of her childern.  For Hillary to suggest so casually that there may become an opening for her in June by referencing RFK's assignation undoubtedly gave  Michelle Obama the chills. 

I'm sure the potential First Couple has discussed the dangers of running for the presidency amongst themselves.  They are both smart people and are very aware of some of the saddest chapters of U.S. history.   But, I am not sure that they had this discussion with their children.  Their oldest daughter, Malia, is ten.  I'm sure she is following this historic race her father is in, closely.  What if she has had to face the implication of Hillarys comment alone?  I can't imagine the possible aftermath. 


Hillary has got to do better than what she has done so far.  Will she apologize to Michelle and the Obama family?  I hope so.  But, I won't hold my breath. 

F. Griffin

What did she mean by that yesterday?

For the answer, let's look at Hillary's remark in the context of the campaign, the news of the day (Friday), the remark itself and Hillary's own frame of mind. In the end, I think I show that the objective of her remark was to tell her supporters to stand firm and help her gain the vice-presidential slot on the ticket.

The Campaign to Date:
* Marked by repeated references to race and gender bias, the campaign pits the first viable woman candidate against the first viable black candidate.
* The greatest danger of assassination accrues to the black male candidate, based partly on the historical record showing several instances of slain black leaders and partly on the fact that there is no statistical model capable of compensating for the scarcity of female candidates in past campaigns and thus, that might adjust for the absolute absence of any women slain in past campaigns.
* Recognizing the inherent danger of assassination, the Secret Service provided Sen. Obama with the first security detail for any candidate in this campaign, with the exception of Sen. Clinton, who has had one since becoming First Lady.
* Sen. Clinton has shown a determination to win the nomination that astounds even seasoned political observers. Her tenacity has become legendary.
* The current campaign season is the longest in many decades, by virtue of its extended primary calendar and because some candidates began campaigning more than 18 months ago.
* Exit polls record a marked unwillingness, largely on the part of Sen. Clinton's supporters, to support the opposing primary candidate in a general election.
* While there is some evidence of gender bias, particularly in the media, racial bias is evidenced even more by exit polling showing a distinct racial preference among up to 27 percent (WV) of white voters. The fact that black voters appear even more disposed to vote their race must be somewhat discounted in a year where African Americans are enjoying the first real possibility of electing a black president and because they have historically supported white candidates over black candidates in past primary cycles.
* Clinton has stressed her ability to lead by being "Ready on Day One."
* By Friday, Obama leads her in states won, the tally of popular votes in party-approved contests, pledged delegates and superdelegates.

The News of the Day (Friday morning):
* CNN reports high-level, formal talks between the Obama and Clinton campaigns over the possibility of Clinton as vice-presidential running mate (a story CNN later softened to talks among high-level, unofficial advisers of the two campaigns).
* Clinton superdelegate and California Senator Dianne Feinsten is among those openly advocating for a veep slot for a combined "Dream Ticket."
* Time magazine reports that former president Bill Clinton is driving the effort to secure a slot for his wife on the ticket.
* TPM posts a front-page story quoting chief Clinton fundraiser Hassan Nemazee as indicating anything less than a combined ticket may cost Obama financial and organizational support. He goes on to say: "It goes without saying that this argument is predicated on the fact that the single most important aspect of Senator Obama's decision is who is able to serve as president in a moment's notice should that need arise. And it is clear that Hillary Clinton fills that role."
* Edward Kennedy has been released from the hospital after tests reveal an inoperable brain tumor.
* One of Clinton's California superdelegate switches his support to Obama.
* A new poll in California shows Obama now leads Clinton.

The Remark:
* Friday, Clinton was interviewed by the Editorial Board (EB) of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Here is the relevant portion of the transcript, unedited:

CLINTON: This is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition where we find ourselves and you know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa and I find it¬¬-
EB: Why? Why?
CLINTON: I don’t know I don’t know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.
EB: You don’t buy the party unity argument?
CLINTON: I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June
EB: June
CLINTON: We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.

Hillary's Frame of Mind:
* The interview takes place in mid-morning, when Clinton presumably is most alert and most rested from the grueling campaign.
* Clinton's support in California is eroding. Even Feinstein, one of her staunchest supporters there, is talking about a unity ticket rather than winning.
* A scant few contests remain, and they will not supply enough pledged delegates to overcome Obama's lead.
* Superdelegates continue trickling out for Obama, stretching his lead.
* She is being questioned about her reasons for staying in the race when hope appears lost.

CONCLUSION:
Was her remark less sinister than a threat but more substantive than a timeline reference? Was she arguing for a slot on the ticket because she could be "ready on Day One" and at "a moment's notice?" Was she making a veiled pitch to California supers to stick with her because "anything could happen" in the course of a campaign and only by being positioned in the number two slot could she count on an automatic promotion to nominee?

I think so. You decide.

So, I'm wrestling with an ethical question. I've got Republican friends who aren't exactly thrilled with McCain, but who can't bring themselves to vote Democratic. It seems like a bit of a cheap shot to encourage these people to vote 3rd party when I've discouraged all of my Democratic leaning friends from doing so when they're not thrilled with the Democratic candidate. On the other hand, I'm convinced that it actually is in their best interest since I think that a Democratic president will help almost all of us. (Those earning more than $250,000 might reasonably disagree, depending on their priorities.)

So, what do you think? Is it ethically wrong to encourage them to "throw their vote away"?

I remember that June morning, piled into the back of a huge Mercury, getting a late start on our vacation, the radio comes on, the words from the announcer changing the mood of the day. I was new to politics, just starting to understand, somehow becoming aware in the few months between their deaths. But this would stick with me. Actually all of them stick with me. JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X. Any discussion of them automatically triggers a response in me, visualizing the sequence of events that led ultimately to their deaths. It's like reading the last chapter of books and then proceeding to the first. I remember the magazine covers earlier in the primaries, but this would seal the image, California, the primaries, the day before my birthday, the vacation, Rosie Greer, that kitchen.

Late last year Benazir Bhutto, a woman, returned to Pakistan, defying a ban on her participation and numerous death threats and attempts. Her last moments are strange - lifting herself out of the car to make a better target. Why? No one will ever know. Our friend, the PM, announced shortly after that it was her own damn fault. It always is, I suppose. We all bring on our own deaths in one way or another, even if it's for a good cause.

When the crazies come out, no one is safe. Dozens of men, women and children are killed every day in Iraq. Most of them innocent of anything but wanting to survive, to protect their families. That's not enough. Crazies don't distinguish. They kill people of their own tribes, their own religious factions. Hillary knows this damn well. She's been attacked by crazies for a good 20 years. They're worse than Billy's grackles. There are crazy neocons who screwed our budget and foreign affairs for the next generation, and they simply don't care. They had an idea and they pushed it through, and they took down their party, fellow "conservatives", their own families, and whatever else happened to be in the way. Some of them are waiting for history to judge them better. Most simply don't care - they're comfortable in their overconfidence and incompetence. Anyone invoking the crazies as if they'll be a faithful partner is delusional. Crazies support their own weird agendas, the radio voices in their heads. Fortunately in this country, at least in our politics, they've been relatively quiet for over 20 years. But if they do come out, we know very well they can come out for anyone - against everyone. Hillary knows this. Obama knows this. They share the same danger. Crazies may seem to be racist or religious nuts or homocidically misogynist or some other problem. But their main distinguishing characteristic is that they're crazy. They work for no one. And if there's one thing that people seem to agree on, Hillary is quite the opposite of suicidal.

The following is a reference to 1992, as there seems to be some confusion about when Clinton was assured the nomination.
========================================
Clinton swept nearly all of the Super Tuesday primaries, making him the solid front runner [similar to Obama - Des]. Jerry Brown, however, began to run a surprising insurgent campaign, particularly through use of a 1-800 number to receive grassroots funding. Brown scored surprising wins in Connecticut and Colorado and seemed poised to overtake Clinton.

On March 17, Brown forced Tsongas from the race when he received a strong third-place showing in the Illinois primary and then defeated the senator for second place in the Michigan primary by a wide margin. Exactly one week later, he cemented his position as a major threat to Clinton when he eked out a narrow win in the bitterly-fought Connecticut primary. As the press now focused on the primaries in New York and Wisconsin, which were both to be held on the same day, Brown, who had taken the lead in polls in both states, made a serious gaffe: he announced to an audience of various leaders of New York City's Jewish community that, if nominated, he would consider the Reverend Jesse Jackson as a vice-presidential candidate. Jackson, who had made a pair of anti-Semitic comments about Jews in general and New York City's Jews in particular while running for president in 1984, was still a widely hated figure in that community and Brown's polling numbers suffered. On April 7, he lost narrowly to Bill Clinton in Wisconsin (37-34), and dramatically in New York (41-26).

Although Brown continued to campaign in a number of states, he won no further primaries. Despite this, he still had a sizable number of delegates, and a big win in his home state of California would deprive Clinton of sufficient support to win the nomination, which Brown apparently thought would revert to him by default. After nearly a month of intense campaigning and multiple debates between the two candidates, Clinton managed to defeat Brown in this final primary by a margin of 48% to 41%

Hillary has made a number of unfortunate statements lately, the recent one about RFK being the most egregious. Sometimes this kind of thing is the result of groupthink. When a group of people attempt to make a decision or choose a plan of action, loyalty to the group may trump concern for a good outcome. Individual members who might have dissenting views tend to bite their tongues. In other cases, the members of the group are chosen on the basis of their loyalty, and diverse opinions are unlikely to surface. Groupthink has been blamed for the Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco and other bad governmental decisions.
Now that Hillary is facing such adversity, the circumstances seem ripe for groupthink. To keep going and remain optimistic, it would be natural to surround yourself with loyal, like-minded people. Listening to devil's advocates would be more difficult. The problem, of course, is that loyalists will not tell you that a phrase like "hard-working white people" is a bad idea or that the mention of presidential assassination could be offensive. 
Ironically, President Bill Clinton sought out the Republican David Gergen as an advisor, a move that increased the likelihood of diverse viewpoints. This must be a difficult time within the Clinton campaign, but if Hillary wants to avoid tarnishing her image any further, it will be important to listen to diverse viewpoints. If she hasn't already, Hillary should find herself a Gergen.

Hillary's at the plate.  No one on base, she's two strikes down, and Obama's ahead by 5.  Suddenly she turns to the umpire and says, "If you add up all the steps we've each taken in this game, it turns out I've run farther than Obama.  He's got more runs than me, but I've run farther than he has.  So I should win the game."

The crowd roars, the ball whizzes past, and the umpire yells, "You're OUTTA there!"

7 years ago, we dropped the LA Times for the NY Times.  We did this because the level of journalism in the NYT was far superior.  The LAT would  post biased editorial commentary on their front page and pass it as a news piece.  The paper had no problem pawning propaganda in their stories. (and their journalists wrote excessively like wanna-be creative writers).  
What we loved most was seeing a story mangled on cable TV, retold truthfully, and in-depth. 
Over the last few months, the NYT has turned its back on journalistic standards. Today we finally realized our newspaper is history. 
They now get their poltical stories DIRECT from dumbed down cable shows.  This paper PARROTS stories from the dumbest political chatter blogs,  themselves tainted from spin put out by paid Obama operatives! 
For the NYT to even insult their readers with this Robert Kennedy garbage is amazing - but to PUT THIS ON THEIR FRONT PAGE!!  
It's coming down to this:
Clinton:  I'm staying in this race! 
NYT:  CLINTON SAID RACE!!!  CLINTON IS A RACIST !!!!!
I think all of us would welcome a new progressive paper.  The NYT is proving itself too old, corrupt, and steeped in dishonesty.
(yes, yes, we know Judith Miller etc. this is not intended to be an academic historical piece)

I resort to "blogs" (Where on earth did that word come from?) because I like to write , and because I think I occasionally have something interesting to contribute to the discussion.

At the best of times, I'm uncomfortable with the "mob" behavior so commonly exhibited on these sites .  When something like today's scarecrow "crisis"  - the Clinton/RFK "news" - inflates itself to crowd  all the air out of any chance for real thought about matters of real importance, I find myself doubly embarrassed. I feel like one of the pitchfork-wielding villagers in the old Frankenstein movies, just by virtue of the fact that ANY participation in this zoo exhibitit (even to oppose) feels cheap. My only consolation is that this balloon will burst in a day or two, and we can all get back to baling hay and feeding the livestock.

I'm reminded of the line in Yeats' famous poem:

"The worst are full of passionate intensity,
While the best lack all conviction." 

Sen. Clinton has an unfortunate habit, for a public political person: She talks too much in public when she's tired, and sometimes loses that self-editing function that keeps the kind of dumb things we ALL are prone to say confined to appropriate private settings. That is a serious political liability, and she is already paying a steep price for it.

What it is NOT, is any implication whatsoever that she wishes RFK's tragic fate on Sen. Obama. That is a criminal distortion of what was actually said. Anyone who is feigning indignation on that false basis to score a "point" is contemptible. (Not being a licensed physician, I have no adequate way of describing those who actually BELIEVE it).

I suggest (futilely I know, but in good faith) that we give it a break. We're making fools of ourselves. Any normal person reading this dialogue on this holiday weekend would cite us all for legal commitment. Let this thing blow over until something more substantial replaces it on Tuesday. Go grill a few hot dogs and drink a few beers.



.

anyone else find it incredibly interesting that the "liberals" here at tpm have apparently decided to be the only "news" organization that is not going to comment at all about hillary's assassination snafu?

i know that some people who work on this page think that by remaining neutral they can somehow worm their way into a tele-pundit spot somewhere, but his just reeks of rank pandering.

if the parrots here at tpmemo don't find enough outrage inside of themselves over this outrageous outburst, perhaps they should simply start sending off faxes to cable news outlets.

i hear glenn beck is looking for his ed mcmahon type sidekick.

Hillary is the person America needs to be the next president of the United States of America.  We will be fortunate to have her as our president.  She should go all  the way and never give up.  We want her, we need her.  The good old boys have been trying to push her out from very early on.  We do not need the flowery but empty words of Obama, we need the hard working, dedicated , intelligent  work of Hillary Clinton.  As far a Kennedy goes; sorry for his illnes, but he as never been a man of morals or ethics.  He has had power and money  because of his family ties.   I certainly would not want him as a role model for my children.  However, Hillary deserves our respect and gratitude.   Obama, what has he really done?  When has he had to get out and really scrap, really work out problems and issues?  Hillary has been proven over and over and over again, both in her personal life and in her vocation.  She has worked all of her life  for Americans.  God Bless Hillary.  Hillary is a person we can be proud of as a role model. Another thing, the word assassinate, So what; it was a fact.  Bobby was still fighting to be the nominee in June when he was assassinated. So what, if she used the word assassinate?  it was the truth, it happened.  She certainly was not disrepectful to the ailing Kennedy.  I hope if the Democratic Party does not do the honest thing and make Hillary the nominee, then,  we the American people should write her name on the ballot for president. Do what is best for America not what is best for the party.

    After 5 disastrous years in Iraq, Katrina, record gas prices, and in short, one of the worst, if not the worst administrations in our history, The messenger of hope and change can't do better than tie his Republican opponent. (link to poll)

Have we elected a weak candidate? Have we made a big mistake? I hope not. I want America to move forward.

At this point, with Republicans losing congressional seats at a fast pace and the country headed on the wrong direction, Obama should be beating McCain by an overwhelming margin.

Looks like we will all regret having bought his Beatles-like charisma which was disguised his Dukakis-like unelectability.

God help us.

the dems have been trying so hard to coronate this fool that they have alienated their core support base--and the necessary states to win the election in November.  Not only have they alienated potential voters, they have driven party members away (me, for one, case in point).  oblahblah is a poor substitute for a driven, intelligent, and forceful candidate.  EMpty rhetoric, pretty slogans, and bland promises to"change" and fix stuff is cotton candy. He'd like us to believe rainbow sprinkles and daisy chains will fall from heaven if he is elected.  FAIRYTALE was right--this candidate is from la-la land.I will cheer and shout when McCain is elected because on that day, PERHAPS, the Dems will realize how stupid they have been and might--just might--decide to promote a substantive candidate in the future.  But I doubt it. They seem to have drunk the koolaid.NOBAMA in 08

I, for one, never thought that Clinton’s election to the Senate was a  difficult one.  Rick Lazio was far from a formidable opponent.  Tapped late into the process to replace Rudy Giuliani, who’d been diagnosed with cancer and who was dealing with his private life not becoming increasingly public, Lazio was an awkward rival who played out as part buffoon, and part goon. I remember cringing in horror as Lazio approached Clinton at the podium during a televised debate. He was so aggressive that I was sure he would take a swing at her. I gave Clinton enormous credit from not cowering at his advance.  That moment was absolutely amazing for Hillary, and clearly the end of Lazio’s bid for office.

Jeanine Pirro, for all of Lazio’s faults, was an even worse opponent during Clinton’s reelection bid.  Pirro’s campaign imploded for a myriad of reasons.  You can view part of Pirro’s announcement  HERE (you’ll see Mika Brzezinski in action as she talks about the match up between the two candidates and the problem each candidate has with a husband who behaves badly).  No one has forgotten, I’m sure, Pirro’s rousing announcement speech ("just words") when, in the middle of discussing her vision for New York, she lapsed into a 30 second pause. She’d lost ‘page 10’ and had no idea what she was supposed to say.  What an inauspicious beginning, one that would be indicative of the campaign in its entirety.  By December of 2005, Pirro’s flailing campaign was over.  Her family’s scandals and being ill-equipped to run for office gave her little to no option but to drop out of the race.

Both of these incidents, I think, help explain the ‘air of inevitability’ that took hold of the Clinton camp.  The camp had conflated the ‘two Hillarys’. There was Hillary the strong woman - as evidenced by the fact that she was able to weather the worst of her husband’s storms and face the public with such steely resolve, no matter how deeply humiliated she’d been.  There was Hilary the politician, who’d never faced a tough opponent.  What Clinton, and Clinton, and Penn, and Ickes, and Lanny ‘Fox News guides me’ Davis, McAuliffe, Garin, Wolfson, and so many others refused to face is that Hillary Clinton is a smart and strong person who, as a politician, has faced weak opponents and is consequently a weak candidate.

Unfortunately for her, Clinton was presumed to be the Democratic Nominee, even from the time she ran for re-election in New York.  The press was filled with articles about the First Lady-turned Senator-who would be President.  The air of inevitability began long before the Presidential race began in earnest.  Here’s why it matters.

I can only imagine that Clinton and long time campaign adviser Howard Wolfson viewed Obama as a cross between Lazio and Pirro.  Young, bold, and perceived as arrogant- not based on his actual behavior, but that he, like Lazio, came out of nowhere to challenge a political machine.  He didn’t ‘go squish’ as easily as Lazio, however.  Pirro, an attorney with relatively decent oratory skills (if you were able to forgive the announcement pause) was a bit tougher. She was willing to take huge swings – some of them below the belt.  She was a fighter. Obama, criticized for not swinging hard enough against his Democratic rival, was still willing to hit back.  I think the Clinton camp assumed they would dispose of Obama in the way they’d disposed of Lazio, and Pirro, with roughly the same effort.  They were ill prepared.  The lack of fight from Lazio and Pirro had dulled their senses.

In the face of tough opposition, Hillary Clinton’s choices leave me questioning just how competent she is to hold office.  I don’t think any of us doubts that she’s a scholarly person.  She’s well read, she’s a great thinker (with regard to issues), and she’s accomplished.  But even bright people do some wasteful and inappropriate things:

1. When faced with what was perceived to be a much stronger opponent, Sen. Clinton caved on the toughest issue of her, relatively short, political career.  Bush’s approval ratings were soaring at the time she voted to authorize the Iraq war, giving a strongly worded speech defending her support of the vote.

1.  A vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which would set the stage for war with Iran.

1.  Supporting Cluster bombing in civilian areas  

Add to the list:

1.  Firing Patti Solis Doyle.  This is the move that should have troubled feminists far more than almost anything else Clinton has done (other than to allow mostly men to run her campaign in the first place).  I don’t understand what’s happened to some in the feminist movement who seem to consistently exchange feminist principles for the "privilege" of being in Clinton’s camp, but this is the point when I was sure that most who were part of her camp had jumped the shark.

Remember, Clinton, the presumed nominee, declared the race ‘over’ by February 5th (prophetic, but not in the way she’d hoped):

Link if the video doesn't work

Solis-Doyle spent and allowed spending to occur based on the projections of the mostly male campaign advisers

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

"We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now," said a prominent New York donor. "So much about her campaign needs to change — but it may be too late."

The high-priced senior consultants to Mrs. Clinton, of New York, have emerged as particular targets of complaints, given that they conceived and executed a political strategy that has thus far proved unsuccessful.

Sen. Clinton had a choice to make, Solis-Doyle, or Mark Penn.  Penn, she seemed to believe, was the more powerful and successful of the two.  Despite Mark Penn’s misbehavior, despite his failed campaign strategies (most notably the Feb. 5th disaster), despite the fact that he seemed to not understand the nature of Democratic Primaries, loyal long time supporter Solis-Doyle got the boot.  Clinton’s deference to power is also probably the reason she would pay out 2.9 million dollars to Penn while smaller, more financially strapped, vendors continue to wait to be paid.

Add the various offensive statements about Obama, and implicitly about Obama supporters.

Add to that the now infamous Couric interview in which she insists she’ll be the nominee.

Add to that the various ‘misstatements’ like the sniper fire incident to show she was as tough as McCain, tougher than Obama.

Now add the tragic attempt to use the assassination of RFK for the sake of self-promotion and to defend her actions.

Don't confuse what's being said here:  I am disgusted by Sen. Clinton's comments. I've been offended by the way she's run her campaign since S. Carolina.  I think she's a dismal politician and has no idea what it means to maintain the trust of the people.  

I'm not talking about Hillary Clinton the politician.  I'm referring to Hillary Clinton, the woman, when I say this:   I’ve regained my ability to see her as a survivor, and a brilliant woman, I’d lost that. I’d confused the strong woman for the weak politician who floundered when confronted for the first time by a strong opponent.  It doesn’t make Sen. Clinton’s actions over these six months any less repugnant, but I have regained an ability to be sympathetic to her.  The tough-as-nails survivor in her is probably as confused by "Hillary the candidate" as the rest of us are.

Ultimately, I'm exhausted.  I have no more disgust and anger to waste on the Clintons.  I'm turning THAT page and focusing on Nov. and working hard to help Sen. Obama win the White House and take this country forward.

Cross posted at Dailykos.

The idea as Candy Crowly expressed on CNN last night that Hillary 'gains' nothing by making that statement about why she's staying in this race -- invoking the memory of RFK being shot in June -- is a very WRONG comment of Candy to make.

Hillary gains a lot.  By getting the MEMORY out there, voters and super delegates are forced to THINK about the idea of Obama getting killed - then what would they do?

Hillary made this comment for a reason -- wake up Supers.

How dare Candy to ignore this FACT.  The Clinton's, like the Bush's, do NOTHING without a reason.

I wrote to DNC Chairman Howard Dean just now, asking him to take charge to end the primary before disaster strikes.

If you want to write as well, here is the address for the comment
form: http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/chairman

Text of my email:

I am horrified at Senator Clinton's latest comment about why she's staying in the race -- hinting that Senator Obama may be assassinated -- and urge you and the Democratic leadership to immediately take
whatever action is necessary to END THIS PRIMARY!! Meanwhile, I hope that someone has the foresight to get Barack Obama extra Secret Service protection.  Some white-robed looney may take Clinton's comments to heart.  Please -- DO something.  This monstrosity of a Clinton campaign, from the "hardworking white voters," comment to the not a Muslim "as far as I know," smear is tearing the Democratic party apart and may be putting  our presumptive candidate in ever greater physical danger.

It.  Must.  End.  Now. Gather the super delegates and lay down the law.  Please.  Thank you.

Questions for Senator McCain and Senator Clinton.

Senator McCain, why did you call Reverend Parsley your "Spiritual Guide"?  I have you on video saying just that. 
Parsley has been reported as saying America should "destroy" Islam.

The media reported yesterday that you have now rejected Hagee and Parsley's endorsements and words.  You attacked Barack Obama by saying your relationships with these men was nothing compared to Obama's relationship with his Rev. Wright. 

If Parsley is your SPIRITAL GUIDE -- I think that makes it VERY clear how 'close' you are to the man.  It's too bad the media doesn't jump on that part of this story.

Hillary Clinton, the reason you gave reporters for staying in this primary race is because your are concerned that something 'awful' could happen to Barack Obama in June -- or worse, somebody could 'kill' him like they did Robert Kennedy.  Did you ever stop to think that by simply walking away awhile ago, that 'if' God Forbid, something did happen to Obama or his campaign, that the Party would 'still' be able to ask you to step into the position?  You didn't 'have' to stay in the race.  People would still vote at the upcoming primaries.  Making it sound as though you would be our hero on the side lines, is plain ludicrous.

You are implying that if you had gotten out, the Party would be without a nominee.  You are wrong.  At one point, say two or three weeks ago, the Party would have simply asked that you run in his place.  That won't happen now.

Why you might ask?  Because if something 'does' happen now, like the famous Vince Foster story, you will be accused of being somehow connected to Obama's problem or death.  The Party will not want a tainted candidate.  I'm assuming that John Edwards, Al Gore or some other leader will be offered the position instead.

Hillary, you've blown your own plan/dreams of ever being President.  To top it off, you've blown any chance of being Obama's VP selection.

Go home Hillary, it's over.

In June, 1968, Robert Kennedy was the Senator from NY state, running for the Democratic nomination. He stayed in the race even though his odds were long. This is what Hillary was referencing. His unfortunate assassination is what stopped his campaign, and Hubert Humphrey became the nominee.

If Hillary was really suggesting that any assassination take place by using this example, it would have been her own. She was merely stating that others before her have continued on with their quest for the Presidency, well into June.

Robert Kennedy Jr., who endorsed Hillary Clinton months ago, issued the following statement yesterday:

“It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June.  I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband’s 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June.  I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”

Kennedy also said in an interview that “his support of Mrs. Clinton has not wavered.”

For years, I couldn't understand the visceral hatred of Hillary by so many people. She struck me as an extremely bright woman who could show a rare, extremely high level of determination to work for what she thought was important. Sure, there were troubling things in her past like her cattle futures trades which smelled of favoritism, but that seemed to die down. And, of course, there was her secrecy and my way or the highway approach to the health care task force, but perhaps she learned from those mistakes. All politicians have skeletons in their closets. It's part of being a driven person.

She often talked about the “scars” she has from those days.

In the early debates, I thought she did very well. I thought she showed she would make a good president. She was impressive.

But after SuperTuesday, and especially after the Potomac Primaries, it became clear to me that she had no plan to win the nomination except by denigrating those who dared oppose her (states that "don't matter", caucuses "don't matter", the pledged delegate count “doesn't matter” - only the super delegates matter, delegates can change their vote at any time, etc., etc.). Her campaign's tone-deafness on race, her stupid promotion of McCain, her self-proclaimed vast experience and competence yet her inability to even pay her campaign's bills!, and her latest (though several-times repeated) comments about "assassination" make it clear that she' not "ready from day one". She's not ready at all.

Her tone-deafness on discussing issues (and non-issues), her conviction that she's right and her critics are always wrong, her inability to learn from mistakes, her alliances with her reactionary long-time critics like Scaife and Murdock, and on and on, make me see that (while she would likely appoint some good people and think about issues, if given the chance) she would be a continuation of Bushism - 50%+1 is all that matters.

Finally, her tone-deafness on the problems created by her sticking in as a candidate until the end of the primaries. It's not the fact that she's sticking in that's the issue for me, it's the way she's been campaigning. I won't go through the details of the stupid and almost evil way she's been campaigning recently – Keith Olbermann covered them very well last night. In short, it's her say-anything style of campaigning that's the problem, not the calendar.  Pointing to June being important in the past says nothing about why she's running a scorched Earth  campaign against Obama now.

Her “scars” apparently have taught her nothing.

In the Bible it says they asked Jesus how many times you should forgive, and he said 70 times 7. Well, I want you all to know that I'm keeping a chart. - HRC.

Ha. Ha. Not.

While her reactionary critics are often unfair, often evil, and often illogical in their criticism of her, IMO, she is pathological. She's learned nothing from her past, her scars, or even past campaigns. Statements like “she's tired” don't excuse any of these things. She's has no reasonable rationale for continuing to campaign for the presidential nomination.

If she does not “suspend” her campaign by the end of the week of June 3, IMO, she will have completely destroyed her remaining goodwill among many in the Democratic party and the electorate. Her hubris and tone-deafness will finally give her reactionary critics the victory they've wanted since 1992.

this morning i meditated on my inner child. no, not the child inside me that i used to be, but the child that i hope to have one day soon, who for the time being, still is me.

here's what she helped me realize:

i wish we could all stop speaking in unrealistic, absurd hypotheticals and ego-driven assertions and really get to who is best prepared to protect AND PROGRESS our nation's fallen standing in the world.

instead of Straw Man Gas Tax Holidays, i wish that fewer of us would take a holiday from common sense when such common sense contradicts our egos' needs.

i wish we could really reallly discuss more things like the falling levels of education, the rising high-school dropout rate among our youth and compare that to the disproportionate numbers of our citizens in our nation's jails. we might see a solution that would end the trend of  our growing inability to compete with poor but proud kids from places like india.

we would also see how much attention Hillary's pantsuits and American Idol truly warrant.

i wish that Terry McAuliffe would start some trendy new diet and exercise program or become a college basketball coach, or at least have Rain Man teach him to do proper mathematical -- not political -- calculations.

i wish we didn't care so much about lapel pins and that we cared more about the pinned-in, those receiving ANTIsocial INsecurity while the Europeans and the Japanese receive more in exchange for their tax dollars than we do, pension scandals notwithstanding.

i wish someone could explain to hillary that we really really do appreciate her desire to make health care universal, but that such ideas existed before 1992, and such ideas can come into fruition without her. she has at some point in this cycle offended, insulted, or just plain ignored (hello my asian brothers and sisters!) every single subgroup in our country, all under the notion that she's doing this to take care of us. please rescue her from the megalomaniacal theory that she must rescue all of us. herself. please talk her in from the cold.

just don't bring her to my house.

i wish we could figure out a way to talk to cuba that didn't just keep the interests of the privileged exiles front and foremost, but that somehow led us on an enlightened discourse to learn how they accomplish such good health care, such inexpensive medication, and such excellent doctors even without the assistance of the united states.

i wish i could get the email addresses of some of the really cool jews i see posting comments in the cybersphere about progressive ways for Israel to dialogue with its adversaries in the middle east. an adversary is just someone who opposes you, like in a tennis match or a dungeons and dragons tournament...an enemy is something different....and i wish my Jewish/Palestinian/Muslim brothers and sisters could tell me exactly how i could help them in the struggle to live peacefully. i really do.

that said, i wish we in the U.S. could figure out how to have enough adversaries to keep us strong, defined, and walking in the Light without so many enemies constantly out to utterly destroy us -- and i wish we could be a better adversary to those with whom we are fundamentally at odds.

i wish we could find a way to disagree and still make each other stronger. but maybe that's just me.

i wish that i could stop seeing comment posts from people who say "i'm a 36 year old white woman and a working mother of two, and OMG sexism is SO MUCH worse than racism".

i am a black woman. so will my daughter(s) be, whether i wind up with the Hot Swiss Guy or with the Righteous Black Brother who's my cousin's work colleague. there are many places i could go with this, but the bottom line is that racism and sexism both suck noodles. I WISH these women who are so quick to compare and contrast could at acknowledge that there is an existential distinction between the female progeny of a people who once were slaves and the female progeny of those who enslaved them.

i say this not as a crutch or to beg anyone to understand or validate what i feel and what i know about my experience. it does not negate the love and camaraderie i sincerely feel with many of my sisters from other ethnic backgrounds, but the blanket comparisons PLUS Geraldine Ferraro PLUS Hillary Clinton's assertion that there has been no racism in this campaign -- YEESH!

if i don't laugh i'll cry, and I WISH somebody White besides my Dutch girlfriends and my favorite auntie understood THAT.

i wish that more people would realize that the Democratic Party has received only about 40% of the so-called Reagan Democrats (working-class white men) since the civil rights era (hmmm), including bill clinton, who won the election twice, and black people voted for him in the largest proportions of any other ethnic demographic. twice.

therefore, i wish the MSM would please pump their brakes on the argument that the white men who voted against obama for hillary this time around in a primary are racist enough to do so, but still not so sexist (in those pockets of Kentucky ) that they'll let the GIRL retain their vote against a white male war hero in a general election.

i wish folks would please remember that as much as democrats and democratic-leaning independents have a distaste for her, the republicans will treat mccain like BraveHeart going to the battlefield come november if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. and just acknowledge it, mourn it, and then come together ENOUGH to all punch obama in the ballot (pun intended) this november.

i wish that more people would come forward to really ask hillary and bill to explain why they did not seem to have any problem with the rules when bill won twice, and when hillary looked inevitable.

finally, i wish that people could just read this post and breathe for a minute, without complaining or asserting their tortured, torturous and TORTUOUS points of view in the comments section...take a break from the drama -- stretch, relax and release, 'cause i'mma do me and y'all should do you.

as best as we all can, Do.

luv&hugz,
mE.

Yes there was the now rousing Obermann 'Final Comment' which shows why Keith has one of the best research teams in the media that backed the "Assassination" subject in the corner. But what no one is broaching is that this apologetically described 'gaffe' is none other than a "Freudian Slip of the tongue". It ranks up there with saying the word "BOMB" on an airplane or "FIRE" in a crowded theater. It is more another gaffe which Keith went on how many times this campaign season has forgiven Hillary for the many other 'gaffe's' be it the "Bosinan Big Fish Story" or the "planting of Q's" in Iowa just to name a couple, she has uttered. But this one takes the proverbial "cake", like how Maria Antoinette is remembered in history saying "let them eat cake!" Thankfully last night the press was eating it up like how sharks in a feeding frenzy.

Going deeper, this "Freudian Slip of the tongue"----meaning a momentary exposure of an unspoken or subconscious thought [or worse, a wish] that Obama and his campaign would be there no more. Sure she was reaching in that interview, expanding a bit further what she has said before about June or RFK, answering the same inquiry from a constant group interrogation by the press, local and national, as to why specifically are she is remaining in the race despite the obvious second grade math land mounting $20M plus debt.  I mean her logic that a sudden Obama implosion reminds me of what my mother used to utter when she insisted I put on a clean pair of underwear back when I started driving a car---insinuating that if I crashed and hospitalized, at least I wouldn't be embarrassed by soiled underpants. My logical reply was always they probably would be blood stained then! But we know that was not a genuine concern, the fear was that I would crash the car, not soil the underwear.  The fear for Clinton here is that Obama will win the election and serve famously for eight years and leave her political legacy behind.

Yet there are many apologists excusing the 'supposed' gaffe as an example of exhaustion, but was it really? In more aptly fits an utterance expressing anger. Haven't your heard loved ones or even acquaintances say things like "I wish him [or her] dead". Or "they should hang the bastard", as if they know whether the human being was born out of wedlock. That said we know the meaning of those phrases in context----complete contempt for the person. Sure most are sorry afterward for saying such a mean and nasty thing, but it still showed a moment of serious contempt. In this case this contempt was in public, and ultimately possessing a serious and defining political consequence. I suspect many Democratic leaders who are associated or supportive of Clinton will quietly separate from her.

For me it actually shows her inexperience in the big political arena. Hillary Rodham Clinton might be a superior political wok but the role she honed over the 30 years was actually the chief supporter of her husband. Like it or not that was her role regardless of her own personal ambitions, the role as standard bearer does ably fit. And this gaffe, on top of the "lost count" ones that Obermann's research staff put together prove it regardless of her base of energized and stridently scorned support.

This from today's New York Times:

"Still, the comments touched on one of the most sensitive aspects of the current presidential campaign — concern for Mr. Obama’s safety. And they come as Democrats have been talking increasingly of an Obama/Clinton ticket, with friends of the Clintons saying that Bill Clinton is musing about the possibility that the vice presidency might be his wife’s best path to the presidency if she loses the nomination."

Admittedly, there is no direct source quoted for this, and it is possible that Bill is looking toward 2012. But it sure sounds horrendous.

Thoughts?

With her comments yesterday to the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader (easily one of the BEST newspaper names in the country!), Hillary Clinton confirmed that she has spent some time thinking about what would happen if Barack Obama were assassinated--after all, she and her surrogates have been referencing assassinations since at least January. 

Now, lots of dirty f'ing hippy bloggers have gotten all bent out of shape about this statement, suggesting Clinton is only staying in the race on the off-chance that Obama gets offed.

I humbly suggest another interpretation:  Clinton is cannily opening her bid to become -- Vice President!  After all, aside from presiding over the Senate (something she can clearly do, having served in the Senate for 8 years now), the only real job of the Vice President is to -- wait around for the President to die!  Hillary was just signalling that she is already comfortable with the psychic burden of the Vice Presidency.

After all, her comments came on the same day that CNN reported "high level" talks between the Clinton and Obama camps about the Vice Presidential slot.  If CNN reported it, it MUST be true, right?  So this was just Clinton's clever way of confirming the story.  Nice touch to send her staff out to vigorously deny it, too.  Those Clintonistas are such tricksters!

I for one am greatly relieved.  After, being Vice President can really take a toll--the crushing boredom, the funerals, the photo-ops with D-list White House visitors, while all the while the necessary but morbid thought:  "what if President X get's whacked and I gotta take over?"  Far better to have a VP like Hillary whose already been thinking like that for months and feels perfectly comfortable with the idea!

Statement from Robert Kennedy Jr.

 

Robert Kennedy Jr. issued the following statement this evening:

 

“It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June.  I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June.  I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”

New Ideas:

Send a copy of "the Catcher in the rye" to every donor.

Win a date with Jodie Foster contest.

Send two tickets to Michelle and Barack to a performance of " Our American Cousin"

Free "Helter Skelter" download on the Hillary website.

New Ideas:

Send a copy of "the Catcher in the rye" to every donor.

Win a date with Jodie Foster contest.

Send two tickets to Michelle and Barack to a performance of " Our American Cousin"

Free "Helter Skelter" download on the Hillary website.

New Ideas:

Send a copy of "the Catcher in the rye" to every donor.

Win a date with Jodie Foster contest.

Send two tickets to Michelle and Barack to a performance of " Our American Cousin"

Free "Helter Skelter" download on the Hillary website.

An irony of Hillary's assassination gaffe is that she was at her very best (notwithstanding that on the tape she looks ready to drop) throughout the rest of a very substantive, wide-ranging discussion with the Argus Leader. From Native American policy to the varieties of potential ethanol sources to western water policy, she was Clintonian in her mastery of policy detail. You can understand why she thinks she's 'ready' to be President. If it weren't for her long sequence of duplicitous, predatory, Rovian tactics and comments, I would agree.

In fact the interview contained a Clintonian answer to Obama's metapolitics - his pitch that we've got to change the way our political system functions before we can enact good policy. Obama's argument is that the U.S. government can't put the common good first as long as lobbyists control legislation, and that we can't have serious policy debates until we break through the Rovian politics of personal destruction and distorting attacks. In this debate, Hillary said that we can't engage in serious long-range planning and policy-making until we change the mindset bequeathed
us by Ronald Reagan -- that government can't solve anything, that the business of government is to shrink and undermine itself.

The two diagnoses are related. The anti-government stance goes with a messianic faith in the marketplace, a belief that business unleashed and unregulated will create the wealth that government only inhibits. Those holding that belief system naturally enough opened the lobbying floodgates.
Not that there wasn't plenty of corruption and interest-driven legislation in the long era of Democratic control of Congress -- but it metastasized with the advent of the Gingrich-Delay crowd and their K Street Project, and it took over the executive branch in the Bush era. So Obama and Clinton are
both right. The antigov mindset created a system in which legislation is for sale and political 'debate' becomes a cover for positions essentially dictated by lobbyists.

Robert Reich, in Supercapitalism, suggests that it's the hyper-competition of global capitalism that created the pressures that brought this system into being. Reaganite antigovernment ideology, from that point of view, is
more result than cause. Reich has few answers as to how citizens and politicians can take the government back. Hillary's answer is reverse engineering: get a mandate for the right policies, and the attitude toward government will change. Obama's approach is a frontal assault: remain
personally free from lobbyist money, get a mandate to write legislation to reign in lobbyist influence, change political discourse by personal example.

Will either (or any of their successors) get anywhere? It may seem naive to say yes. But there have been periods, as both like to say, in which the U.S. government has risen to enormous challenges and successfully engaged in
long-range planning. Democracy's saving grace, as long as there's a critical mass of power remaining with voters to throw one crowd out and bring new people in, is self-correction. We're in the midst of an attempted course
correction. We'd better get there.

Cross-posted at xpostfactoid.

Alexander the Great cut the Gordian Knot. He didn't try to untie it. Therefore:

(1)Select the person who (in the Presidential nominee's view) would make the best President.
 
When distracted from that purpose by the inevitable TV air-filling chatter of "experts",  intent mostly on showing us how clever THEY are:

(2)See #1 above.

 The last FOUR winning tickets avoided about 90% of the Chris Matthews-style kingmaker overload, and simply put a 3-wood in the center of the fairway with a solid complimentary choice. It's the LOSERS who invariably over-think it and strain for some kind of  phony"balance", or try (invariably forlornly) to steal a state.

Whatever you do, it's possible to either win or lose. Do either with your best game.

Reading the quote from Hillary where she references RFK looks pretty bad and leads the mind to conjure all kinds of nefarious intent.  This is patently ridiculous when you watch the video.

I do not like the way Hillary has run her campaign, I did not vote for her and I am a huge fan of Obama, but I have also retained my ability to see things objectively.  She was referring to RFK as a moment in time that many people would remember being in the summer.  That is all.

Come on Obama supporters - we have enough real material here, lets not start making thing up. It just makes us look stupid and reactionary.

In response to a Lunch Ticket Clinton supporter who was upset with the whole "assassination" thing, I 
I agree with that interpretation, and I think the Freudian aspect of her comments are there, (perhaps?) overblown. The Headlines on this gaffe (?) are exploitative of what you see in the video. However, there is that little aspect of her weighing her words and using the Robert Kennedy meme to work for her argument. She has been making this same argument for several months now. This is not new. The problem is that all observers of Obama's rise in popularity have been seriously afraid he could be assassinated, and to them her statement seems to acknowledge that fear and use it to her advantage. 

My interpretation, today, is that it was a gaffe, one of the billions of gaffes each one of us make daily when we attempt to communicate. It is the nature of communication itself, filled with all the Freuds you can imagine. Although her comments may not have been directed toward this fear (again ?), she slipped-up on a widely held and highly charged fear that people have. It's irrational. 
But it is also the very space/play ground of Rovian Politics. And these comments do fit into her pattern of Rovian tactics, and that is what judges her.

I have to leave this one alone. I just went full circle on this. 

You charge that Obama sees Clinton as the enemy. I don't think Obama sees her as the enemy, but an ally, unfortunately, a flawed ally. Its not so much that Hillary has flaws, we all do, it is the makeup of her flaws that hurts her today. I think her baggage brings a host of additional problems that make it difficult to position her in the campaign going forward. She is a victim of her and Bill's successes. 

In the last week, and prior to this gaffe, I watched all hope of a Unity Ticket fade away. I was a proponent for it, and I've written about the pros and cons on several occasions. However, as a VP choose, Obama would have to demand that she and Bill disclose more than they would be willing to, e.g., Bill's foundation donors lists and associations. In addition Obama would need guarantees and detailed limits on Bill's activities outside his formal position as spouse to the VP. This would include all business associates, etc. etc. 

Once you begin to enumerate the conditions you realize they're absurdly impossible to demand or abide by.  

If you don't already know, the VP option was discussed and rejected prior to Hillary's appearance in Florida a few days ago. Hence the reason for her new math in counting the popular vote, and conflating the situation with the 2000 recount. Even the MSM has brought out her hypocrisy on this issue. Many of her staff set up these rules, including Howard Ickes, and she signed off on them. Below, is a video of Florida State Senator Steven Geller mocking and gaming the system during the proceedings in the Florida Senate that led to disenfranchising  >1.75 million Florida voters in an illegitimate January 29 primary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE

(case closed) Clearly, Florida Democrats are not doing well by their constituents. None-the-less Florida will count. 

Obama will have the necessary 2025 delegates (w/o Mi & Fl) to clinch the nomination by May 31st (The date set for the meeting of the rules and bylaws committee). Superdelegate, Mr. Cardoza is the first of 40 delegates, mostly from California, switching from Clinton to Obama. They have already notified Hillary of the switch and will be coming out 2-3 a day.  From here Obama will be able to attain Hillary's new hurdle of 2210 delegates (including Mi & Fl), regardless of what occurs at the rules and bylaws meeting.

Right now it is Obama's race, and unfortunately it won't include Hillary on the ticket. There will be many books published about this primary season - many brilliant books. There is a lot to chew-on here. History was made by the battle as much as by its conclusion. Whether or not  Hillary becomes President in the future, many more books will be written about her, and how she had to maneuver first on the margins of our cast system, as the role of wife and mother,  and then at the seat of power to attain the highest office. Yet, to limit her to these roles is an attempt to diminish her brilliance. Her abilities are undisputed, and like any great warrior from mythology this journey has brought her to the edge - the edge of acceptability. We forget too often what it was like 40 and 50 years ago for young women starting out on a journey to climb to the highest levels of power. Hillary was unusual because she had that as her focus. She is the first, and ahead of the pack, because she didn't accept the path that would not lead to the heights of power. The only paths provided. She leaped frogged the system and tomorrow there will be many, many more women assuming these roles because Hillary's fight was real and she was formidable. 

What is amazing about the conclusion of the primary season is the power of the losing narrative. Hillary may have lost this contest but the struggle she led is a powerful story. 

And George W. Bush looks Presidential.This was repeated over and over on CNN immediately after the Gore/Bush debate in 2000. 
We were bewildered.  In actuality, Bush's eyes looked like those of a stunned animal caught in a light beam.  It was as painful to watch Bush then as it is now. 
Meanwhile,  Michael Moore and the Latte crowd were having their own rage.  They wanted to screw Al Gore by voting for Ralph Nader. 
Had Daily Kos been around in those days, "Kossacks" as they lovingly call themselves, would have joined in.  "Al Gore is going Down," would be the gallant war cry. 
Anybody remember why?  What Michael Moore cause was so worthy that it killed off a candidate from the most peaceful presidential administration in our nation's history?  
Moore, what cause justified the deaths of  thousands worldwide; and pushed middle class American who were enjoying an unprecedented standard of living, back into poverty?
Moore, and the angry Lattes got their wish.  They taught America a lesson it would never forget. Nobody knows what the lesson was, but we were saved from having to endure Al Gore. 
When Gore tried to do a recount, CNN, MSNBC et al came up with another buzz sentence:  "America wants to move on." You could not turn on the television without hearing how America was weary of the democratic process, and wanted go on and let Bush have the presidency. 
What if Al Gore had stood his ground?  What if he had stood up to the chanting heckling media?  Americans wondered frequently.  
We can see what Gore's fate would have been right now. 
A new candidate is being harassed and victimized by CNN, MSNBC and friends. 
This one has the spine to stand up to them and say "Hell No" to them.
No, you will NOT push me out of this primary.  I have as much right to be a candidate as anyone else. 
And yesterday is an example of what would have happened to Gore if he had shown a spine of steel.
The media now has a gag order on mentioning Clinton's name.  She no longer exists.  Only lengthy cuts of Obama and McCain are aired.
Except.  Except when they find something negative about Clinton to propagandize.
And like yesterday, when there is nothing negative, to turn it into negative.
Corporate owned news is telling Clinton that if she does not get out of this race now, they will destroy her.
And now big money has a new propaganda tool.  The web.
Jackals puppeted by big money are installed in every progressive blog.  To make sure there is plenty of hate mongering so that things are pushed in the right direction.  And that any opposition is razzed and silenced. 
We'll stop now, and hear from either knowingly or unwittingly, one of said corporate puppets, hiding behind his stash of avatars.

The more I have thought about Hillary's remark the clearer it is to me that she knows she will get the nomination ONLY if something terrible takes Obama out of the race. She has no scandal to use or she would have put it out there already therefore only a physical disaster befalling Obama would allow here to win. She has obviously allowed herself dark daydreams to avoid facing the failure of her campaign. Musing about RFK, another inspiring young candidate, has been just below the surface for weeks. Hillary is exhausted now and her natural restrains are diminished. All of us allow ourselves innocent revenge fantasies. Who hasn't briefly imagined something bad happening to someone we are angry at? However, we seldom give voice to them unless we are with trusted acquaintances who realize it is only our frustration or anger speaking. They know we would never act on our impulses and in truth we would be horrified if something terrible did indeed happened to the object of our anger, but deep down we are searching for some way-anyway-- to make the person disappear from our lives. Hillary's monumental failure was to not immediately offer a complete unqualified apology.

Yesterday, California Rep. Dennis Cardoza switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama. Congressman Cardoza said,  “This is the most important election of my lifetime. While I continue to greatly respect and admire Senator Clinton and feel she has made history with her campaign, I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party’s nominee for President. He has proven himself to be a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader and will take America in a new direction, which we desperately need.
“I am deeply concerned about the contentious primary campaign and controversy surrounding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan – two states Democrats need to win in November. I will not support changing the rules in the fourth quarter of this contest through some convoluted DNC rules committee process. Yet, we must find a resolution to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so these states’ voters are represented at the Convention. I believe we need to avoid this potentially divisive situation by uniting behind one nominee and bringing the party together immediately. Therefore, I have made the decision to support Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention in my role as a superdelegate.”
 * * * * *Like most members of the House, Rep. Cardoza is up for re-election in November. If you support what he did yesterday to try to end Sen. Clinton's mindless, heedless, reckless, endless extension of our nominating process, you might consider making a small, or maybe not-so-small, contribution on his behalf:
http://www.denniscardoza.com/join.php
Word gets around quickly on Capitol Hill, so they say. I'd like to see another 90 superdelegates endorse Obama by May 31.

Will Obama Reject The Pinochet Team? Increase  Decrease

Barack Obama's top foreign policy advisors are working hand-in-glove with leading neocons--and McCain advisors--to forge an imperial policy of forcible interventions into sovereign nations such as Myanmar, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. The question is: Will the Senator move now to dissociate himself from these bad apples?

 

A May 19 op-ed by Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl, defended the campaign of Obama advisors Anthony Lake and Ivo Daalder to establish a ``Concert of Democracies,'' to sanction military invasions of countries in Africa and Asia. A call by an EIR investigator to Obama headquarters on May 21, elicited a statement from a spokeswoman, who said she would refer the question to the appropriate persons in the campaign, and get back to the caller. There has been no response thus far.

 

The case against the Lake-Daalder team of promoting a British imperial view is open and shut. Lake, a former member of the Clinton Administration, has been in a partnership with the architect of the Cheney-Bush Presidency, George P. Shultz, for the past five years. The two serve as honorary co-chairs of the Princeton Project on National Security, which came out, in the Fall of 2006, for an Anglo-American-led Concert of Democracies to carry out preventive and preemptive wars of regime change around the world, outside the United Nations Charter. Daalder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, has teamed up with leading neocon Robert Kagan (an informal advisor to John McCain) to promote interventionism as well, in the form of the Concert of Democracies.

 

Their outlook, and relationship with Shultz, an architect of the 1973 Pinochet coup in Chile, prompted Lyndon LaRouche to dub the advisers ``Obama's Pinochet Team.'' ``To bring an intimate collaborator of George Shultz in, as his chief national security advisor, is the height of poor judgment on the part of Senator Obama,'' LaRouche observed. ``Doesn't he know about Shultz's role in the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile? Doesn't he know about Operation Condor, and the legions of Nazi war criminals, who were set loose by Shultz, and his fellow Pinochet booster Felix Rohatyn, as death squads all over the Hemisphere and in Europe?''

 

- The `Concert of Democracies' -

 

While the Princeton Project policy was put forward as an alternative to the Bush-Cheney unilateral approach, it is actually a virtual printout of British imperial strategy. It global Concert of Democracies, proposal ``would provide an alternative forum for liberal democracies to authorize collective action, including the use of force, by a super majority vote.'' The idea, in specific, was to get around the reluctance of the United Nations, particularly permanent Security Council members Russia and China, which have veto power, to violate national sovereignty.

 

Under the heading of ``building a Liberal Order,'' Project demands the following reforms of the UN: ``expanding the Security Council to include India, Japan, Brazil, Germany, and two African states as permanent members without a veto; ending the veto for all Security Council resolutions authorizing direct action in response to a crisis; and requiring all UN members to accept `the responsibility to protect,' which acknowledges that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from `avoidable catastrophe,' but that when they are unwilling or unable to do that, that responsibility must be borne by the international community.''

 

Until the doctrine, otherwise recognizable as the Blair Doctrine for ``humanitarian intervention,'' can be implemented, the Lake-Shultz group argues that the United States and its allies do it themselves.

 

The Concert of Democracies idea directly echoes the ``League of Democracies'' plan put forward by Anglophile Clarence Streit in 1938. Streit was an American leader of the Milner Group, run by Lord Lothian, a top strategist for the pro-Nazi faction in Britain, who directed Streit to create a propaganda network inside the United States in favor of an Atlantic Union. In his book, Union Now: A proposal for a Federal Union of the Democracies of the North Atlantic, Streit called for the United States, its currency, and its military to be amalgamated with the British Empire, as the ``nucleus of a world government,'' that would impose its will by armed force.

 

Interestingly, Streit was the father-in-law of fascist financier Felix Rohatyn (his first wife was Jeannette Streit), who, with Shultz, helped organize the Pinochet takeover of Chile.

 

While it is not known whether Obama has called for the Concert of Democracies policy directly, Republican candidate John McCain did so in his March 26 speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. McCain has also been endorsed by Shultz.

 

It is crystal clear that the Lake-Shultz approach translates today into a total violation of national sovereignty of developing nations, whom Lake, according to Diehl, accuses of being responsible for blocking ``more efficient peacekeeping operations,'' and causing ``the rising temperatures of our seas, and multiple other transnational threats.'' Enforcement of that approach means genocide.

 

Will Obama now clean up this problem in his campaign and dump these British agents?

Apologies.  I should read the instructions before posting! 

Funny or Die link:
www.funnyordie.com/videos/2485627735

YouTube link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWZmVGBDv3Q

Enjoy!

Hillary and Obama's fight for the nomination.  Reminds me of Queen. 
<object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf?7228" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=2485627735" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=2485627735" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf?7228" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><noscript><a href="Clintonian'>http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2485627735">Clintonian Rhapsody</a> on <a href="FunnyOrDie.comhttp://www.funnyordie.com/">FunnyOrDie.com</a></noscript>

or
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2485627735

The visceral reaction lingers, but what happens next will be more interesting. Here's my predictions:

* The press will be playing catch-up for a few days, downplaying the seriousness of Clinton's remarks at first. They get that people are upset, but not entirely why. The usual network cast plays it as they always have, but by mid-week, it's obvious that Clinton's hopes for the nomination AND the Veep slot are beyond repair. Talk will turn to her dashed reputation and the awful waste of the Clinton legacy.

* Superdelegates start breaking for Obama in increasing numbers today, building to waves of as many as a dozen per day within the week. Included in the coming month will be scores who had once endorsed Clinton.

* Pelosi, Gore and a few other top names announce in about a week — before the June 3rd primaries.

* Clinton soldiers on bravely, knowing any slot on the ticket is gone. She tearfully announces her withdrawal from the race only after the MI/FL question is resolved by the Rules Committee in early June.

* McCain begins hitting Obama hard as soon as Clinton drops out. Several new ads are rolled out in the first week by 527 groups supporting McCain. They strike at all the soft spots, but leave out most footage of Clinton's primary campaign attacks on Obama. Only her praise for McCain makes a brief appearance. The GOP figures Clinton has exhausted her usefulness after the assassination remark.

When will the Clintons determine that they've done enough damage to the Democrats' chance of winning the White House this fall? June, July, August, never??

Maybe this is the final fiasco of the Democratic Party, the absolute Last Straw.

I, for one, (probably one of millions) will never work for a  Democratic presidential candidate again if this easy lay up is blown.

It'll be time to stop all the excuses and instead work to build a truly independent political movement and a  multiparty system once and for all.

Let me take you down
cuz I’m going to strawberry fields
Nothing is real
and nothing to get hung about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v65tWn0URhs

So, when do Bill and Hillary Clinton dress up in white sheets,
raise the Rebel Flag
and have done with it?

Helter Skelter
Helter Skelter

Week after week, I hope that Hillary will take her chance
and make a graceful exit.

Today, it is too late for a graceful exit.

I want her out. 

She is my Senator, here in NY, and I as a New Yorker have a voice.
She has a Senate website, and I’m letting her know how I feel.

http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

I am sickened, and I am tired.

Shame on YOU, Hillary Clinton.  Shame on YOU!

Super Delegates, where are you?????????

 

A few months ago I was talking with my mother about the Democratic race and who she was thinking of voting for in the Virginia Primary and I was surprised by her reaction.  She was afraid of supporting either Clinton or Obama but especially Obama because she was afraid that something would happen to them if elected.  I can't say that the idea never crossed my mind but as a person in my early thirties it didn't last in my head very long; but as a woman who as a 22 year old was working for a small town newspaper this is an idea that was preventing her from offering support of either candidate.
My mother is a year old than Hillary so I would think they share some of the same milestone experiences that were so horrific for our nation during the 60s. 

I finally convinced her that the candidates were patriots that knew the dangers and if they were willing to run then she should be willing to support one of them.  I didn't push her on Obama but she told me later that she did vote for him. 
I can imagine a comment like the one that Hillary made today being made by someone my age who just hadn't lived through this type of an event and doesn't fully understand; but for someone who not only experienced it but has also lived through years of the secret service protections I would think she has a strong appreciation for the dangers and would have stayed clear from this reference.

Hillary Clinton Finally Admits - Her Only Chance of Winning is if something major happens to Barack Obama, whether that be by some political action, a health issue or somebody kills him. 

Hillary's camp is saying that's not what she meant and that the recent events involving Ted Kennedy just brought back memories -- wrong Hillary.  You said the same thing a few months ago. 

While the media should have made a point of it back then, repeating those comments again today when you are trying to convince super delegates into allowing you to 'stay in this race' on May 31st by allowing for Florida and Michigan votes to count -- it's quite apparent that you are now basing your whole campaign on the 'hope' that something major happens with Obama and his campaign, thereby allowing you to step in and take his place.

Need I remind delegates that during the Clinton years in office, it was widely rumored that anybody that had 'connections' with the Clinton family that somehow crossed hairs with them, would sooner of later end up 'dead'.  Need I remind folks that Hillary Clinton was called a 'murderer' when Vince Foster 'committed suicide' during the White Water investigation.

I, at the time flat out fought these rumors tooth and nail -- saying the GOP would do 'anything' to harm the Clintons.  Well folks, these kind of comments do not help to erase those memories.

Just imagine if Obama were to ask her to be his VP nominee.  What if something 'did' happen to him.  Who would America blame?

Super delegates should immediately end Hillary Clinton's campaign 'for her' by coming out and pushing Obama over the needed DNC rules delegate count of 2026.

Read More of what happened today here:

!?REALLY?!

?!REALLY!?

Can we quit pretending that she is a briliant politician?  Discounting all the substanative arguments for or against her as a candidate, Hasn't she commited some of the most blatent misstatements of the campaign season?

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated"

"working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"

“Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation and you know what I'm talking about"

Do these quotes sound like the statements of a politcal genius who is always on message?  Was her handling of the drivers license question a show of political genius?  Was she smart to refuse to defend her oponents even once when they were being attacked unfairly?  She cannot be nice even when it is in her own selfish best interest.  Is that the behavior of a political mastermind?  How about praising the funder of "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and FOX News, is that brillliant?  building up the credibility of the very news sources that have in the past and will in the future be your own harshest and most unfair critics seems blatently foolish to me.

How far down does she have to go before we can admit that the empress has no clothes?

Its Friday night and I'm watching CSPAN.

Dennis Kucinich is chairing a hearing and i think he'd be a great secretary of HUD.  He's chairing a hearing on foreclosures, vacant housing and neighborhood revitalization.

And he's the only one there. Don't you love the work ethic of Congress?

1)Would he want to give up his congressional seat?
2)Would he be an effective executive?

It's probably never gonna happen. But it's a thought I had, and as you know, you're required to post every thought you have or the internet gods will grow angry.

 =P

I saw this for the first time today when a friend emailed me a link   I apologise if this has been going around for ages and you're all familiar with it, but if it's not old hat,  I think it's worth circulating.  I'd like it to get msm time, especially given sexism is all the fashion with the networks at the moment.   It's a pity Ellen didn't reference it when she interviewed him.  (I assume she didn't know of it.)

John McCain,  telling a `joke` - when Chelsea Clinton was only 17:

Q: Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?

A: Her father is Janet Reno.

source:  http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=John_McCain

Thank you, Keith, for laying out in fine detail the utter fatuousness and inconsequentiality of Hillary's entire campaign - a campaign that has done nothing but sink lower and lower with every passing week.
no Presidential nomination.
no Vp offer on the ticket.
Time to get the Hell out of the race while you have some small percentage of dignity left.

Read this in its entirety before you scream.

In the event that Hillary Clinton's dark vision of the future ever comes to pass (God, forbid it!), history will record the clouded question of her role in the plot.

Just as a minority still attribute the assassination of JFK to Vice-President Johnson (one of many conspiracy theories), there would be some who pick at the psychic scab of another presidential hit for decades afterward and come to their own conclusions.

None of this is to say that Hillary has or ever would play any role whatsoever. Even I regard her as far above such diabolical plans. But she has raised the shadow of a direct threat, the specter of far too much in the balance. While she was speaking about the RFH assassination, her top fundraiser, Hassan Nemazee , was voicing an implied threat of Obama's failure if Hillary is not included on the ticket.

As he told TPM today: "It goes without saying that this argument is predicated on the fact that the single most important aspect of Senator Obama's decision is who is able to serve as president in a moment's notice should that need arise. And it is clear that Hillary Clinton fills that role."

A moment's notice. Assassination. Succession.

IF the worst were to happen to Obama, the one person the country could least tolerate to succeed him would be Clinton. The country would become a battleground of rumors and riots. Rather than stepping up to heal a nation, she would be viewed by too many as stepping in to reap the benefits of tragedy.

She cannot ever be vice-president under Obama. True, she is guilty of no more than ambition and poorly chosen words. But that is enough to rule her out completely now.

Every year people suggest informal rules for deciding who should be MVP in the major leagues.  These informal rules, boiled down, amount to saying that the MVP is the best everyday player on the crappiest team to make the playoffs.

With that cautionary warning, or irrelevant tangent if you prefer, here are my suggested rules of thumb that Obama should use in selecting a VP.

1. No Senators - an all-Senator ticket is too inside the beltway and undercuts the message of change.  Besides, a Senator from a red or purple state puts a seat at risk; a Senator from a blue state is superfluous.

2. At least 5 years younger than McCain - it's hard to argue that McCain is too old if the VP is McCain's age.  This rules out Sam Nunn.  He's only 3 years younger than McCain (plus, former Senator)

3. Elected to state-wide office.  By default, this means
Governor due to Rule No. 1.  There are other statewide offices (Lt Gov, Treasurer), but it's hard to argue that a state Treasurer is qualified to be President.  This rules out Wesley Clark (or, for the more oddly minded, Colin Powell).  A Presidential election isn't the time for campaign training wheels.

4. Democrat - Sorry, I do not think an Obama/Hagel is a good idea.  Too many differences in basic policy.

5. Completed at least one 4-year term of office, or 2 2-year terms of office.  Otherwise, it just underlies the experience issue again.

6. Can't be an IL resident - Constitution prohibits it - rules out Gov of IL.

7. Can't be foreign born - Constitution prohibits it; rules out Gov of Michigan (damn Canadians!)

So where does that leave us?

Keep in mind, I know little, or nothing, about the following politicians.  This is just offered in the spirit of Sports Talk Radio (part BS, part half-serious, part thinking aloud).

1. Gov Janet Napolitano (AZ) - although I don't think she should be selected merely because this might, maybe put AZ in play.  To be blunt, she should be selected if she can help pull in women and Hispanics in general, but not the state of AZ in particular.

2. Gov Ruth Ann Minner (DE) - Does a Delaware politician bring any benefits to a National ticket?

3. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (KS) - I know a lot of people are high on her, but I don't think Obama needs to Kansas connections; besides, does he really want to spend time talking about prison rape because Sebelius's son marketed a game about prison rape and used the governor's mansion as a mailing address for it.

4. Gov. John Baldacci (ME) - Sorry, I just don't see it.  Hannibal Hamlin he's not (actually, I have no idea if he is or not)

5. Gov John Lynch (NH) - Can probably do more for the ticket running for re-election as Governor than being part of the ticket itself.

6. Gov Bill Richardson (NM) - Don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said

7. Gov Mike Easley (NC) - recently polls show that Obama needs help in NC.  A Southerner might help in general (although I'm uncertain how much he would help put the South in play).

8. Gov Brad Henry (OK) - who knew that OK had a Democratic Governor.  Bonus, he's an Obama supporter.

9. Gov Ted Kulongoski (OR) - Not sure that Obama needs any help here.

10. Gov Ed Rendell (PA) - insert comment here

11. Gov Phil Bredesen (TN) - started and ran HealthAmerica Corp, but I don't know if HealthAmerica has any skeletons in its closet.

12. Gov Jim Dole (WI) - once again, I'm not sure Obama needs help here

13. Gov Dave Freudenthal (WY) - Wyoming!  Good one!

If you know of anyone else who meets the criteria, such as a recently retired Governor, please add that person to the list.

In a bold admission, renouned progressive journalist John Judis of The New Republic, who co-authored the book "The Emerging Democratic Majority (2002), has admitted the following in an article titled "The Autopsy Report" wednesday:

 Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history--the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and '60s. And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did--and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.

To add insult to injury, Judis opined that it was ok for McC
ain to go negative on Mitt Romney, but it was not ok for Hillary Clinton to go negative on Obama, because he's the first black candidate to run for president, and being the first black is more important than being the first women to run for the same position.

The Daily Howler marveled at Judis boldness and could not believe it. Here's the Howler on Judis.

Here's Judis piece.

"I find it curious" = "The press is biased"

Man, using that phrase *again* as she did during the Ohio debate is so condesending. It was right next to her RFK comments (which I think referred only to the historic length of the nomination contest, not some wishful thinking on her behalf), but I think her use of that double-speak phrase is the bigger deal to me.

Why say "I find it curious" when we all know what she's really saying? It just makes her even less trustworthy to me, because I know she's using "pol-speak"

Besides, who in the Obama camp is urging her to get out?

Talk about a straw man...

If you can make an issue of what isn't an issue and then have the nerve to call Sen. Clinton the "worst" person on earth. Then , yes, every Clinton supporter will have a long think.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/23/hillary_reminds_usbut_rfk_was/index.php

Hillary invoked Bobby Kennedy’s assassination defending her decision not to drop out of the race. 

To be honest, I don't think Hillary holds a sadistic view of possible Obama assassination as her pathway to presidential nomination.

I'm not her supporter and but let’s admit it’s a gaffe, a misstatement,  a poor and distasteful historical analogy. Hillary and supporters were at their ugliest self exploiting Obama’s “bitter” gaffe and unfortunately her shameless exploitation showed some affect at the polls.

It’s time for us to be a bigger person.

I do not know which offends me more Hillary's reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination or her non-apology.  "I regret IF  . . . .I in any way offended."
When you have made a deeply offensive remark no matter how innocently you say unequivocally:  I apology. My remark was inexcusable and cruel.
This is a character flaw of the deepest kind: the inability to accept blame and responsibility. The press should not offer any excuses for her.
She should not be president and after this should most certainly not be considered for Obama's VP.  There is no defense Hillary or her supporters can offer at this point.

The investication into the sources of the leaks during the 'naftagate' scandal, which slimed Obama just before the Ohio primary appears to have been completed. Press releases and a Reuters story are both claiming that the investigation has 'cleared' Ian Brodie--long-time aide, best buddy, Chief of Staff and political fixer to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (a conservative). The same stories are also announcing his resignation, which is laughably claimed to have no relation to the investigation. Right! Of course it doesn't...

It looks like Brodie picked the "fall on your sword, and we won't charge you" option.

There is a lot being written about Obama's alleged 'Jewish problem'. What this seems to mean is that there is one particular group of people who have a habit of thinking that they speak for the entire community who have a particular problem with Obama.

But that problem has nothing to do with what Obama has said about Israel. Obama has a 100% rating with AIPAC and there really is nothing to distinguish Obama's policy from Clinton's.

There is no real difference on their position on the war(s) either. Both are committed to win against Al Qaeda, both are committed to withdraw from Iraq and likely to mean it, neither is going to start an unprovoked war with Iran.

Some of the difference is explained by racism, but thats not what drives the big lobbies. Their problem with Obama is that he is his own man and does not depend on them for support.

Worse, Obama has much more support and much more visioble support from under 40s in the community they purport to speak for. Obama does not need to tug his forelock to AIPAC, if he becomes President they need him more than he needs them.

That is the real reason for the racist anti-Obama email campaign that has been directed at anyone with a Jewish sounding name the past few months.

Hillary Clinton may have scored a solid win over Barack Obama in California's presidential primary on Feb. 5 (as she frequently likes to remind folks these days), but a new L.A. Times/KTLA poll finds he would fare better than she in the battle with John McCain for the state in November (a result the Clinton camp won't be touting).

Obama led McCain in the poll, 47-40%; in a Clinton matchup with the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, she got 43%, he held steady at 40%.

One reason for pause for Democrats -- the margins for both of their candidates fall within the survey's error margin of plus-or-minus 4 percentage points (though in Obama's case, just barely).

Read more here

I sort of enjoy different takes on a given topic, but can I ask folks here to follow a simple guideline: Check the Most Recommended and Recent posts at right before restating the same basic info. It kind of clogs things up if you don't have something very new to say. You could post a comment to an existing thread. Just a suggestion.

Clinton also talked about John Kennedy's death earlier in the campaign, in reflecting on other inspirational leaders who didn't make it. At best this is a horrible gaff by an extremely calculating and skilled politician. The "harding working whites" and "Bobby Kennedy's death" is more than ample reason to end this now.

There are 64 uncommitted super delegates who are elected officials. 49 of them are congressmen or women. Perhaps those of you who are inclined, could contact uncommitted super delegates and ask them to put this baby to bed. Pressure, especially from their own constituents, might move some to endorse sooner. Please recommend even if you are not inclined to contact your representative.

Alabama - Rep. Bud Cramer, DNC Joe Turnham, DNC Nancy Worley

Alaska - American Samoa - Arizona - DNC Donald Bivens, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Add. Terry Goddard

Arkansas - DNC Lottie Shackleford

California - DNC Steven Alari, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep. Howard Berman, DNC Jeremy Bernard, Rep. Lois Capps, Rep. Dennis Cardoza, Rep. Jim Costa, DNC Mary Ellen Early, Rep. Anna Eshoo, DNC Edward Espinoza, DNC Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker, DNC Eric Garcetti, DNC Inola Henry, Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Linda Sanchez, Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Pete Stark, DNC Crystal Strait, DNC Norma J. Torres, DNC Vernon Watkins, Rep. Henry Waxman

Colorado - Gov. Bill Ritter, Rep. John Salazar, Sen. Ken Salazar, Rep. Mark Udall, DNC Pat Waak

Connecticut - DNC Nancy DiNardo

Delaware - Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Tom Carper, DNC John Daniello, DNC Harriet Smith-Windsor

Democrats Abroad - District of Columbia - DNC Donna Brazile, DNC Christine Warnke

Florida - DNC Jon Ausman, Rep. Allen Boyd, DNC Terrie Brady, Rep. Kathy Castor, DNC Mitchell Ceasar, DNC Diane Glasser, Rep. Ron Klein, Rep. Tim Mahoney, DNC Janee Murphy, DNC Rudolph Parker, DNC Karen Thurman, DNC Andrew Tobias

Georgia - Ldr. Jimmy Carter, Rep. Jim Marshall, DNC Richard Ray

Guam - DNC Vacancy (DNC)

Hawaii - DNC Joshua Wisch, DNC Beverly Withington

Idaho - Illinois - Rep. Rahm Emanuel, DNC Edward Smith, DNC (Stroger) Vacant

Indiana - Rep. Brad Ellsworth

Iowa - Sen. Tom Harkin

Kansas - Rep. Nancy Boyda, DNC Helen Knetzer, Rep. Dennis Moore

Kentucky - Gov. Steve Beshear, DNC Jennifer Moore, DNC Nathan Smith

Louisiana - Rep. William Jefferson, Sen. Mary Landrieu, DNC Claude "Buddy" Leach, Rep. Charlie Melancon, DNC Chris Whittington, Rep. Don Cazayoux

Maine - DNC Jennifer DeChant, Rep. Michael Michaud, DNC Sam Spencer

Maryland - Sen. Ben Cardin, Rep. Steny Hoyer, DNC Belkis Leong-Hong, DNC Heather Mizeur, Rep. John Sarbanes, DNC John Sweeney, DNC Susan Turnbull, Rep. Chris Van Hollen

Massachusetts - DNC Debra Kozikowski, Rep. Edward Markey, Rep. John Olver, DNC James Roosevelt Jr, Rep. John Tierney, Rep. Niki Tsongas

Michigan - DNC Arthenia Abbott, DNC Lu Battaglieri, DNC Mark Brewer, DNC Elizabeth Bunn, DNC Debbie Dingell, DNC Kwame Kilpatrick, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, DNC Joyce Lalonde, Sen. Carl Levin, DNC Jeffrey Radjewski, DNC Richard Shoemaker, Rep. Bart Stupak, DNC Michael Tardiff, DNC Richard Wiener, DNC Brenda  Lawrence

Minnesota - Rep. Collin Peterson

Mississippi - DNC Carnelia Pettis Fondren, Rep. Gene Taylor, Rep. Travis Childers

Missouri - DNC Robin Carnahan, DNC Maria Chappelle-Nadal, DNC Leila Medley, DNC John Temporiti, DNC Yolanda Wheat, Add. Jay Nixon

Montana - Sen. Max Baucus, DNC Margaret Campbell, DNC Dennis McDonald, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Sen. John Tester

Nebraska - Nevada - DNC Yvonne Gates, DNC Sam Lieberman, Sen. Harry Reid, Add. Rusty McAllister, Add. Rusty McAllister, DNC Catherine Cortez Masto

New Hampshire - DNC Raymond Buckley, Gov. John Lynch

New Jersey - Rep. Rush Holt, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, DNC Phil Murphy

New Mexico - Rep. Tom Udall

New York - Ldr. George Mitchell, DNC Ralph Dawson, DNC Irene Stein

North Carolina - Rep. Bob Etheridge, Rep. Mike McIntyre, DNC Muriel Offerman, DNC David Parker, DNC Carol Peterson

North Dakota - DNC David Strauss

Ohio - DNC Joyce Beatty, Sen. Sherrod Brown, DNC William Burga, Rep. Marcia Kaptur, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, DNC Ronald Malone, DNC Chris Redfern, Rep. Zack Space, Rep. Charlie Wilson

Oklahoma - Rep. Dan Boren, DNC Jim Frasier, DNC Ivan Holmes, DNC Jay Parmley

Oregon - DNC Bill Bradbury, DNC Frank Dixon, DNC Wayne Kinney, DNC Gail Rasmussen, DNC Meredith Wood Smith, Sen. Ron Wyden

Pennsylvania - Rep. Jason Altmire, Rep. Bob Brady, Rep. Mike Doyle, Rep. Tim Holden

Puerto Rico - DNC Eliseo Roques-Arroyo

Rhode Island - Sen. Jack Reed

South Carolina - Rep. Jim Clyburn, DNC Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Rep. John Spratt

South Dakota - DNC Cheryl Chapman

Tennessee - Gov. Phil Bredesen, DNC Inez Crutchfield, Rep. Lincoln Davis, Rep. Bart Gordon, VP Al Gore, DNC Gray Sasser, Add. Jerry Lee

Texas - DNC Linda Chavez-Thompson, DNC David Hardt, Rep. Nick Lampson, DNC Robert Martinez, DNC Boyd Richie, DNC Betty Richie, Ldr. Bob Strauss

Utah - DNC Helen Langan, Rep. Jim Matheson

Vermont - DNC Howard Dean

Virgin Islands - DNC Marylyn Stapleton

Virginia - DNC C Richard Cranwell, DNC Alexis Herman, DNC Jim Leaman, DNC Jerome Wiley Segovia, Sen. Jim Webb

Washington - DNC Ed Cote, DNC Eileen Macoll, DNC Sharon Mast, DNC David McDonald

West Virginia - DNC G. Nick Casey Jr., DNC Alice Germond, Gov. Joe Manchin, Rep. Alan Mollohan

Wisconsin - Sen. Herb Kohl, DNC Paula Zellner

Wyoming - DNC Nancy Drummond, DNC Cynthia Nunley

This week, big oil executives went before the Senate Judiciary Committee to justify their windfall "earnings" despite the rising costs of oil compounding the already suffering economy. Surprise, surprise, the theme of the execs' testimony was, "It's not us, it's the markets." Over and over, CEO after CEO cited allegiance to supply and demand as justification for their record profits despite average Americans' sacrifices at the pumps. In fact, J. Stephen Simon, executive VP of Exxon Mobil, had the audacity to say that high earnings are needed "in the current up cycle" to pay for investments in the long term when profits will be down.

When has big oil profits ever been down? This low-earnings doomsday the execs refer to seems to point to sometime in the future when the world collectively realizes the grave we have dug for ourselves with our oil dependence, and we all begin to invest in renewable energy in some real way.

But when will this day happen? When will our elected leaders do more than politically posture themselves for reelection by staging a charade of outrage on behalf of the American people? Congress has called in oil execs to justify the industry's windfalls time and time again, and nothing except lip service ever transpires from these hearings.

America has waited for its conservative leadership's free-market schemes to make a dent in our economic and environmental woes. Not only did they not work, they compounded the problem by increasing the gap between the big guys in the suits and average folks at the pumps, and allowing the greed and corruption of the oil industry to go unregulated.

Such policy disasters also effect our country's role in the world. From wars to global warming, all signs point toward the need for a sustainable energy future, one featuring safe, renewable energy sources like wind and solar. We need policies that encourage the development of these technologies by supporting the Alternative Energy Tax Credits extension. Government investment in clean energy alternatives will create jobs, recharge the economy and protect the environment. /It's time for solutions that produce real relief for Americans: government regulation of the oil industry and investment in clean, renewable energy.

America can't wait any longer: Sign our petition to call for Clean Energy, Not Big Oil Profits.

This comment by Hillary Clinton is pathetic. At first I thought it was a slip of the tongue, however, as Chuck Todd of MSNBC shows here, she or her campaign has used this sort of analogy several times before.

Thus far, neither Hillary nor her campaign have been able to offer any reasonable explanation for her mentioning Robert Kennedy's assassination during a discussion of her reasons for continuing her campaign in the face of impossible mathematical odds.
The inescapable conclusion is that she is unwilling or unable to tell us what she is really thinking, consciously or unconsciously: that her only hope for winning the Democratic nomination is if Obama were suddenly no longer in the race. And that somewhere in her mind, she fantasizes that possibility, and wishes to be poised to step in as the presumed nominee if her fantasy becomes reality.
We now have the answer to the question, "Why does she keep going?" It is not to keep fighting for blue collar workers, older women, or whomever, as though Obama could not fight for these people; he has been fighting for them all his life. It is not because she has any hope of winning enough superdelegates to take the nomination. Not even because she really thinks she is more electable. Rather, she keeps going because she hopes that fate will hand her the Presidency that she has been unable to win democratically.
The only thing more offensive than her cruel, delusional thinking is her denial of it. Her campaign goes on the attack, calling criticism of her assassination comment "offensive". No, Hillary, it the comment itself, and the thinking behind it, that is offensive. 
What more will it take for the superdelegates to end this primary race? How much more offensive behavior are they going to tolerate? If the Democratic party ends up mortally wounded by November, Hillary will only be partly to blame: the "superdelegates", who could have ended this 2 months ago, will bear great responsibility for the debacle.

Check out Al Giordano's latest scoop, revealing that 40 Hillary delegates intend to switch to Obama. He notes, "This is not “'excellent news for Hillary Clinton.'”

HA HA HA HA!

She has just demonstrated why she should not be President.  What an outrageous thing to say.  She is baiting every nut out there.  Disgusting.

Is it possible, conceivable, that Hillary Clinton keeps bringing up the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy because of the misogyny and sexism of the mainstream media?  The Obama Campaign?  His supporters?  Snipers?  Ralph Nader?  Katherine Harris?  Was it mean bloggers?  The vast right-wing conspiracy?  The strain of 35 years of experience?  Reverend Wright?  Bill Ayers?  The race card?  Jesse Jackson?  The album sales feud between Kanye West and 50 Cent?  Roger Clemens?  Bill Belichick?  Pacman Jones?

Or are we just taking her remarks out of context?

I understand that the Wright story is dead (for now), but I wonder why it's not garnering more comparison to Hagee. Especially in the 'judgment' category, considering McCain solicited Hagee's support. That's the story we've all been hearing, but the converse question no one has asked is this:

If Hagee is disturbed (Catholicism = Great Whore; Hitler sent by God, etc.), then he has a assuredly disturbed  vision for America's future and what he wants this country to look like in four years. Given that, he endorsed the man he knew was best for that job: John McCain. Isn't Hagee's endorsement of John McCain a sign of questionable character, if McCain attracts these kinds of people?

The immediate counter-argument from my conservative friends is as follows: "Just because someone endorses you doesn't make you that kinds of candidate!"

But wait, didn't McCain Deputy Christian Ferry send his controversial email accusing Obama of being the Hamas candidate? Enter McCain world, courtesy of HuffPo:

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."

 The McCain fundraising e-mail says Obama's stands have earned him “kind words” from Hamas.

BOTTOM LINE: If Obama is the 'Hamas candidate' if they praised him, isn't John McCain the Hagee candidate? And only one of those candidates initially rejected their respective controversial endorsements...

I'm still for Barbara Mikulski of MD (only partly tongue in cheek).  Short, female, tough, blue-collar, white, probably Lesbian, what' s not to like?

But there was a letter in the SF Chron today suggesting that Dean broker a deal with Clinton heading the ticket in 2008, then they switch in 2012. 

Well.

That certainly worked well for Gordon Brown with Tony Blair, didn't it?

There are other items saying that Clinton money people are suggesting they might get stingy if she is not on the ticket.  Team of Rivals and all that sort of thing.

Well, well.

Although the Clinton camp says any talk of angling for the VP slot is untrue, who can believe anything they say?

Maybe Clinton is figuring she can be the "good" Cheney.

The unspoken -- until today -- additional item here is that Clinton will be in place if, uh, something should happen to Obama.  Suddenly, the increased likelihood of an Obama assassination has come back into consciousness.  It was there at the beginning, you know it was, but I for one haven't thought about it for a while. Maybe you have.  There is no doubt in my mind that the Clintons have.  They think of and about everything.  This will also give the paranoidistas (not me, not me) a chance to talk of dark Clintonian plots.  Gives me a bad feeling, let me tell you.

(reposted from my blog www.richieville.com)

Richieville News Service – BOYNTON BEACH, FL
In retirement communities and delicatessens here and across this state, Jewish voters expressed grave reservations over the news that Israel was engaged in peace talks with Syria. This raised the possibility that Israel might be losing the support of one of its core constituencies, Jews. 
"They're talking to terrorists!" said Bernie Kupferstein, 74, as he leaned on his shuffleboard stick at the Aberdeen Country Club. "I can't believe Israel would betray Israel like that."
At Izzie's Genuine New York Deli, in Boca Raton, Shirley Goldenfarb, 83, shared Mr. Kuperferstein's sentiments. "It seems like Israel doesn't have Israel's interests at heart," she said, vigorously waving her bagel with a schmear. "And to think of all the trees I paid for over there. Appeasers! Feh!"

 Maury Lefkowitz, 91, nodded in agreement. "I heard that Turbowitz is a Muslim," he said, grimacing over his plate of cheese blintzes, "like Obama."He was referring to Yoram Turbowitz, one Israel's chief negotiators in the talks. Mr. Turbowitz is Jewish. Senator Barack Obama is a Christian. 
The reaction was much the same across Florida, where elderly Jews, usually stalwart supporters of the Jewish state, echoed the words of President Bush, who just last week made a speech to the Israeli parliament, comparing those who would talk to "terrorists and radicals" to the politicians who appeased Hitler before World War II. It is now clear that Mr. Bush knew of the peace talks at that time. 
At Century Village, Fanny Glembotski, 98, was so distraught over the idea of negotiating with the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, she could hardly concentrate on her cards as she played casino with her friend, Goldie Mintz, 103.
"Turgeman is an Arab," she stated with assurance. "Everyone at the synagogue says so." She was referring to Shalom Turgeman, foreign policy advisor to Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert.  

"And Olmert is a Palestinian," added Mrs. Mintz.   

Sheila Blumenstein, 114, disagreed with Mrs. Mintz. "Don't be stupid, Olmert's not a Palestinian," she said emphatically. "He's friends with that Reverend Wright."
"You don't say?" replied Mrs. Mintz. "It figures."

Both Mr. Turgeman and Mr. Olmert are Jewish and neither has any association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

In Jerusalem, members of Mr. Olmert's government braced themselves for the inevitable onslaught of criticism not just from Jewish senior citizens but from the Bush administration, which had actively opposed any contacts with Syria.  

"We know we let down George Bush and John McCain," said one high level Israeli government official, speaking off the record. "And we know they're both going to make major speeches attacking us. And what about Fox News? They're going to eviscerate us, every hour on the hour, 24/7. But what can we do? We're just weak."

The official expressed confidence that Jews would eventually come around to supporting Israel, but for the time being, Mrs. Blumenstein and her friends were having none of it.

"And that appeaser Lieberman, he goes to the same church as Farrakhan," she insisted. When told that that Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, does not attend a church and that he has no ties with Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is Jewish, she was genuinely surprised. 

"Really?" said Mrs. Blumenstein, who turned 115 during the writing of this report, "he doesn't look Jewish."

It's official. SHE HAS LOST HER MIND!
Obama needs to cut her off and cut her now!

Ted Kennedy is fighting for his life and she has the lack of judgment to invoke RFK's assasination to make a political point-- a point which also injects the idea of killing a presidential nominee.  Do not even attempt to spin this for me. It's not gonna work.

This is a melt down. Things are out of control at her campaign. I think with this remark, she's taken herself out of contention for VP.  Not just  because I'm angry, but because she's too out of control to ever be President.

it's difficult to wade through the thick cloud of bullshit emanating from the clinton camp these days. now that the pundit class has decided that the race for the democratic nomination is all but over, the topic of conversation has moved on to the hillary hostage situation.

apparently, senator clinton believes that she has the ability to kidnap the entire democratic party and its chances to secure the white house in november and hold them for whatever ransom she believes worthy of her.

on what basis, you may ask.

gentle reader: if there's anything that this nominating process has taught us, it's that bases and metrics and arithmetic have no place in this nomination process. inside the clinton camp, being second place means never having to say, "i lost."

but whither the rationale for such a demand? where does she find the "testicular fortitude" (which, if i may say, was the most overtly sexist phrase uttered during this campaign) to attempt to exact such a steep price?

'tis not for us to ask her why,
'tis only our job to watch her (campaign) die...

it seems to me that the people that are defending this "hillary-as-vee-pee" nonsense are publicly declaring themselves as political neophytes with little or no insight into this race. hillary has wiled away the last several months on the campaign trail by impugning senator obama's qualifications and preparedness to lead this country as president. while attempting to convince the country that senator obama has nothing to offer except impossible dreams and misguided hope, senator clinton also decided that she needed to endorse senator mccain and offer her opinion that he, too, has met and surpassed the "commander-in-chief test." her husband is amazingly out of control and / or off his rocker; either way, bill clinton is not the guy you want running around the country in support of your candidacy.

in addition to these obvious disqualifiers is the fact that an overwhelming majority of his supporters would view his acquiescence to clinton's demand for a spot on the ticket as a renunciation of everything that he has claimed to represent over the past year. senator clinton is many things, but a candidate of change is not one of them.

i'm not even going to get into a discussion about what black voters might think about having senator clinton as his vice-president. (perhaps to begin to mend fences she can share with the public a story about how she used to visit her uncle's cottage outside of gary, indiana, and how lil' man and too-tall showed her how to pop her first cap...)

this is a really bad idea. luckily, i don't think that senator obama will even seriously entertain the notion of offering clinton the vice-presidency. that would be a mistake.

perhaps a fatal one.

Since Greg hasn't gotten this posted on TPM's front page yet, allow me.

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Is this because of sleep deprivation, too? That's the most charitable interpretation I can think of.

Honestly, this is going to go very, very badly for her, as it should.

Intentional or not, you just don't talk about the possible assassination of your rival as a reason for anything.

Truly below contempt.

Oh. My. God. 

Her offensiveness would seem to be without bound.  According to J. Martin at politico.com she's now citing RFK's assassination as a reason for her to stay in the race:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html

She is really a piece of work.  The last week has struck me as nothing if not a bid for the veep slot, and I've suspected she might be thinking that Obama might not last in such a scenario, allowing her to take her rightful place on the throne, but, jeebus, I can't believe she's actually talking about such scenarios openly.  Wow.

In the most clear sign that Hillary has begun to loose her bearings. In an Editorial Board meeting to day...

Hillary Clinton's argument for staying in the race took a disturbing turn today. While meeting with the editorial board of South Dakota's Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, she raised the specter of assassination while discussing why she would stay in the race:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

John McCain hasn't said that but it's clear this is how he thinks.  
It makes you wonder whether his obsession with being commander in chief means he'll treat things like education, health care and the economy like side hobbies.
I haven't yet heard him say that when he's president, he'll hold all press conferences at 0800 hours but for a man born on a naval base, you know he has reveille on his mind in the morning.  
I admire McCain's service to the country.  He put his life on the line for the United States and that's both courageous and honorable.  
But it doesn't give him the right to demean another American's patriotism.  
There are so many ways to serve this country, not all of them originate in the military.  

How about General Wes Clark for Vice-President?  Clark has the military background and the diplomatic experience that Obama is perceived to lack. Clark was first in his class at West Point, while McCain was fourth from the bottom at Annapolis.  He was a Rhodes Scholar. He was the Commander of NATO.  He’s been against the Iran war since its inception.

Wes Clark has other advantages: He’s never stopped contact with those of us who worked for him in his campaign, keeping in touch, pushing other candidates for national and state offices through his WesPac.  He’s from Arkansas.  He’s been a strong supporter of Hillary.  I really can’t think of a better V-P.  He’s a man without baggage.  And he would really enrich the ticket.

 

How about General Wes Clark for Vice-President?  Clark has the military background and the diplomatic experience that Obama is perceived to lack. Clark was first in his class at West Point, while McCain was fourth from the bottom at Annapolis.  He was a Rhodes Scholar. He was the Commander of NATO.  He’s been against the war since its inception.

Wes Clark has other advantages: He’s never stopped contact with those of us who worked for him in his campaign, keeping in touch, pushing other candidates for national and state offices through his WesPac.  He’s from Arkansas.  He’s been a strong supporter of Hillary.  I really can’t think of a better V-P.  He’s a man without baggage.  And he would really enrich the ticket.