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.

As a woman, I want to make it clear that it's not MY belief that women aren't good enough to hold office.  It's the belief of the Clinton camp, and apparently, the belief of a fair number of her supporters.  I can only believe that it's this practice of embracing the mindset of 'empowered masculinity' that led Hillary Clinton to brazenly and unabashedly support an immoral and unjust war and to be unapologetic about it. Forgiveness is for girls.  Apologies are for mama's boys.

It's this attitude that led her to attack her Democratic rival using Right Wing talking points.  It's this attitude that's led her to become the darling of the Right Wing talking heads.

Luckily for the Democratic Party, and for America, it's the same attitude that will end up costing Clinton the election.

I remember, with great sadness, that President Bush successfully mocked Dems by gently tapping his forehead, shaking his head side to side, and stating, 'this is how they think', referring to 'liberals'.  Given the Clinton campaign's hypermasculinized approach, I almost expect to see her hold up an empty codpiece, tapping it gently, and re-stating the line, 'this is how they think'.  She'll, of course, give the patented Hillary look of disapproval as she shakes her head from side to side, dismayed by the 'chick-like' nature of her party.

It's hard to pinpoint when it started, but it's a pretty safe bet that it began with a 'soft touch' approach to supporting the Iraq war.  It was deemed, by Sen. Clinton, a necessary vote to stop Saddam Hussein from carrying out acts of war and genocide on his neighbors and eventually the rest of the world.  We were told to ignore American's faithful servants and loyal heroes like Scott Ritter and Richard Clarke, who were destroyed by the Bush administration for daring to speak the truth.  

We were supposed to turn a blind eye on well established agencies like the IAEA and the U.N. - when they dared to suggest that the intelligence was wrong, there were no WMDs in Iraq. Scott Ritter openly stated that this was a war for people who were bad at science - those who believed that WMDs were easily constructed in the back of trucks, or almost any lab with a bunsen burner (not an exact quote).  

It was easy for the Bush Administration, which has never been science-friendly, to present this war to the American public without serious consequence back then.  Unfortunately, it was far too easy for Hillary to 'man up' and join the Bush administration in their fight to deceive.  There was voter gold in them there war mongering statements!

At the campaign wore on, the anger and the vitrol (heightened and masculinized) grew stronger:

- Shame on you, Barack Obama, meet me in Ohio and we'll hash this thing out.  It was the political equivalent of a gang fight: "Bring your click, I'll bring my click, and we'll bang this one out -- last man standing,  mutha-humper!
- There was the vote for Kyl-Lieberman
- The unwillingness to protect innocent men, women, and children from CLUSTER bombs.
- At the top of the manly man hit list? "Obliterating Iran" statements that require no apology or second consideration.
- In regard to the 'Gas Tax Holiday', you're either WITH US OR AGAINST US.  Econonmists, and others, who don't support her are elitists who are always working in favor of corporate America and against the average American.  As perverse as it is, I have to admit that I'm enjoying her F.U. to Paul Krugman, who almost blindly supports her and opposes the Gax holiday.  Many of Clinton's staunchiest supporters seem shocked by her statements... SOMEONE hasn't been paying attention to who Hillary Clinton really is.
 - Add to that the Easley comment that Clinton was tough enough to make Rocky Balboa look like a 'pansy'.  She got a 'two fer' with that one.  Her supporter attempted to emasculate Sen. Obama and gay males all at the same time.
 - How about Gipson's comment that she she has 'testicular fortitude'?
- A beer, a shot, and a good rifle - meant to be carried by the God-fearing, anyone?
- Most recently, James Carville is 'credited' with stating that if she gave Obama one of her cojones, they'd both have a pair.  I'm not sure where he's going with that, but when I get a visual on it all I know is that it makes me feel dirty, and just a little bit frightened.

WHERE are the feminists and all other people who are rightly angry about the all-too-slowly-dying penchant for sexism and subjugation taking place in modern American culture?  Where are the people who applauded Sen. Clinton's take down of MSNBC's deer-in-headlights-David-Shuster, for making the comment that Chelsea was 'pimped' by her parents?  Where are the people who've been attacking the media for the biased coverage of Sen. Clinton?  Oh, that's right, they're commenting on her testicles, her ability to scare 'pansies', and the qualifications that make her man enough to run the country.  I get it, now.

Why am I supporting Sen. Obama?  Becuase he hasn't defined this job as a 'man's job'.  He understands that the traits that make a President successful are intelligence, decency, integrity, and backbone - which has nothing to do with gender.  He has the intestinal fortitude to say what needs to be said and to stand by it leaving the need to display 'testicular fortitude' to the war mongering corporatists who think we're all to 'girly' to know any better.

It’s so clear to me now that women are just jealous of me, and wish they could look like me.  You’re probably jealous of me too.  Sound familiar?  I’m sure you’ve known at least ONE person like that over the course of your lifetime.  If you thought THAT attitude was lousy, hang on.   There’s now an intellectualized "prom queen" defense being offered to explain why Hillary Clinton hasn’t been able to ‘close the deal’ in getting ALL women to support her.  According to Susan Shapiro Barash, women are either jealous of Hillary Clinton and threatened by the power she’s achieved, or  we’re all doing the master’s bidding and we’re all too confused by the male patriarchy that keeps us held down to know any better.

Barash, referring to the PA primary, states that:  

This victory represents a long needed turnaround in female thinking, and the hope that women are coalescing, recognizing that our country needs and deserves the chance for female leadership.
...
When Nora Ephron pointed out in her Huffington Post piece that "white men will still decide who gets to be president," it drives home how important it is for women to band together. Yet contrary to conventional belief that female solidarity is alive and well, the exact opposite has been evidenced in the reaction of many women to Hillary.

If we take it a step further, what exists is a "limited goods" theory. Instead of being expansive toward other women, we believe in a "magical theft," as if somehow Hillary's ascension connotes another woman's lost opportunity. The shame here is not only in this profound lack of support, woman to woman, but a false sense that our fate is to miss out when another woman wins.

The irony?  That a feminist didn’t recognize the patronizing argument that there is such a thing as a prototypic woman.  Hillary Clinton is supposed to represent the best interests of women, and why?  Because she IS a woman.  Alan Keyes is an American of African descent.  So am I.  He’s a bright man, even if I find his policies a little bat crap crazy, from a progressive’s perspective.  Did I OWE it to him to support him when he ran for President?   His ideas about what moves us forward are FAR different from my own beliefs.  He’s anti-choice. Should I have put that aside and supported him?  

Clinton has shown, me at least, that she responds to what is most politically expedient and that she hasn’t been a feminist in a very long time – if ever. I ‘owe’ her no more than I ‘owe’ Alan Keyes.  I find her and her hawkish views as equally offensive as I find Keyes views about women’s rights.  Why hasn’t it crossed Barash’s mind that it’s ‘The Clintons’ Democrats have become tired of (and that Republicans despise)?  That’s not a gender issue.  Why wasn’t the essay one that explored the LEGITIMATE reasons why so many women have difficulty supporting Clinton?

I’m fed up with being told that not supporting Clinton, when you’re a woman, is a sign of weakness or self-loathing.  I have to wonder if some feminists who are supporting Hillary aren't trying to rationalize their support for her by creating a false narrative that she's under attack because of her gender, and that they need to 'protect' her.  It may make them feel better about supporting Clinton’s anti-feminist emasculating taunts of Obama – yes, men who are sensitive, smart, and pro-woman are ‘too weak’ to run the country.  How is it possible that women who support Obama are ‘tools of the man’, while those who support Clinton’s ‘the better man’ campaign’ are true feminists?  Why hasn’t Barash discussed Obama’s platform and that he’s a pro-feminist candidate – the only one who doesn’t need to be ‘one of the boys’ in order to connect with the American voters?  Keep supporting that pandering Clinton ideology, sisters!

It may please you to know that  Marie Wilson is asking for help writing ‘The Gender Speech’ – one similar to that of Sen. Obama’s "More Perfect Union’.  What I find interesting is that feminists supporting Clinton have never asked why SHE didn’t think to write that speech already.  She’s been more than content to ask women to stand with her and to support her – she’s been doing it for quite some time now.  ("Ask not what your gender can do for you, ask what you can do for your gender").   My response to Marie Wilson’s request:

Senator Obama's speech on 'race' included people like me, black women who are at the intersection and have been negatively impacted by RACE than gender.  I'm always offended when feminists discount that to push the Clinton angle. I know, I know, in 1972 Shirley Chisholm said that she was more negatively impacted by sexism than racism.  I have yet to read the use of that Chisholm quote from a feminist who wasn't trying to make the case that Sen. Clinton has been far more disadvantaged than Sen. Obama.  As Clinton is supposed to represent all women, Chisholm's '72 statement is supposed to be representative of all women of color.

The Clinton name, Clinton machinery, MSM compliance and support, tapping out big donors early because of the structured campaign run by experienced pols ... SHE’S disadvantaged?  

Since he began his campaign, I’ve watched Sen. Obama pull this nation together. HE didn’t use race, or gender, orientation, or class status as wedge issues.  His focus was on ONE America, where the rights of all were to be respected and upheld.  I’m sorry that the Clinton camp has decided that "balkanizing" the Democratic Party is the only way to go.  I’m sorry that Penn’s colleague, Doug Schoen, has decided that Clinton should continue to go negative and would be winning if she’d gone negative early on.  I’m sorry that it’s not already June 3rd, so that we can focus on what nominee Obama needs - as well as our down ticket candidates.  I’m not sorry that I’m a woman who isn’t supporting Sen. and President Clinton’s bid to return to the White House.  In fact, I’m quite proud of it.

Crossposted at Dailykos

If you want to put a generous spin on the ABC debate, you might suggest that Stephanopoulos  and Gibson were "hopped up on testosterone" and itching to prove that they weren't in the tank for Sen. Obama. (I haven't heard the term 'hopped up' in a while and with the discussions of 60s radicals, I realized that I missed it).  The most likely explanation, given Stephanopoulos' past role in the Clinton administration, is that he IS in the tank for Clinton, and Gibson was just along for the ride.

Here's the problem for George, and Charlie, the MSM/TM, and ultimately, Hillary Clinton. 

They're right, 6 in 10 voters don't think Clinton is honest.  She did little to change that, last night.  While issue of her dishonesty was raised, and she was allowed to prattle out an answer that had nothing to do with the question of her (dis)honesty problem, there was no follow up.  She AGAIN commented that she wouldn't speak about Bosnia while she was tired and that she 'got it right' when "she" (or whoever) wrote about it in her book.  So how could she get it wrong FOUR TIMES?

So the problems for Clinton, thanks to Stephanopoulos, are:

1 - Clinton is now more of the 'Bush' candidate than ever before.  With respect to her proposed policies?  No.  But who the hell knows what she'd do if she got in the White House? Cluster bombs, Iraq vote, Iran vote... you get the picture.  It's hard to trust that the media, ESPECIALLY ABC would be professional in investigating or even questioning her on anything she did.

George and Charlie may not have thought we noticed, but we did.  Neither of them followed up and showed her the footage of the FOUR DIFFERENT times (twice on St. Patrick's Day) when she uttered those words... NONE  took place late in the evening or during a time when she seemed exceptionally tired.  As far as *I* know, she managed not to tell huge lies about anything else. 

Why was Bosnia so different?  How could she 'misspeak' or 'misremember' being shot at, or that her child was shot at?  How could George and Charlie not ask her that?  They were sure to ask Obama about a man whose crimes he had nothing to do with, crimes taking place when he was 8 years old.  Clinton was QUICK to jump on the Ayers issue, with the moderator's passive permission, as Obama had to remind Clinton that her partner-in-political-crime gave pardons to TWO members of that organization.  Obama's sin?  Working on the board of a charity organization with Ayers.

I trust Stephanopolous to be as vigorous in keeping Hillary honest as he was in keeping Bill honest.  You see where THAT got the party!  Speaking of the party:

2-  It was bad enough when CLINTON was kissing tail and doing the bidding of the right wing party and media in tearing the Democratic party apart.  Given the report that the Ayers question was Sean Hannity's brain(less) child, it's clear that Clinton and her cronies are willing to marshall their efforts and resources in joining the right wing in ripping the party to shreds.  She's already wasted party resources continuing a race she KNOWS she can't win.  Bowing before the right wing, doing their bidding?

They do so without shame, without regret, without so much as an acknowledgment that their actions have consequences for this party in the general election.  Stephanopoulos may have thought he was doing Hillary a favor, with the tabloid-esque questioning, but once the dust settles, and it's not just the party faithfuls who are upset, there are going to be some tough questions for Team Clinton - including the media.  There are those on the edge, the undecideds who were already cautious of Clinton,  will start to reflect on the debate and Clinton's inability to behave as  a leader in the face of the idiocy of the moderators.  That's when the blowback begins.

Will it happen in five days?  Maybe, maybe not, but it will certainly happen by June 3rd.  This debate left a bad taste in the mouths of all who believe in democracy, justice, and fairness.  It was an especially bitter pill to swallow for economically depressed voters who don't give a damn about 'capital gains taxes'.  Hillary and Clintonistas may whine that Hillary has had tough debates, but no matter how much she whined, NONE of those were personal attacks on her.  They were questions about her policies and the way she's handled her campaign.

Here's what 'right wing Dems', and the MSM/TM need to consider:  The 'Obama movement' isn't just about turning back politics as usual, it's also about refusing to tolerate the lazy, semi-skilled, thoughtless press coverage we're typically treated to.  The MSM/TM's days are numbered, and they don't even know it yet.  What will replace them?
Gibson and Stephanopoulos didn't have time for pesky issues oriented discussion. Informed voters had to log on to get the information ABC was unwilling or unable to give. 

As we become serious about 'wiring' this nation and making technology more affordable and readily accessible, the limited media outlets we have will become obsolete - Gibson may not have to worry about capital gains taxes, then.  The fact that I can NOW tune in to any news outlet and hear EXACTLY the same conversations, day aftter day means that it's time to take the power out of the hand of corporate media.  They, along with Hillary Clinton, have lost the trust of the people.  We can do better.

Chris Matthews, of all MSM/TM (traditional media), seems to have finally awakened to the fact that elections matter; clearly the media have been asleep since the 2000 election. I'd started to believe that Matthews was coming around, after S. Carolina. I was only sure he'd finally gotten it once he said this:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0zia9cQpbkU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0zia9cQpbkU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Confession: after stating that I was done watching Morning Joe (and I AM), I relapsed, today.  I watched the segment with David Shuster as he talked about his disbelief that Bill Clinton would bring up the Bosnia incident again, and his utter confusion at why Clinton done it. Had he done it to excuse Hillary's lie?  I don't think so, but more on that later.  In order to 'defend' Hillary? Possibly, but in order to do so, Bill had to tell another set of lies. 

1 -She said it only once. No.  She told the Bosnia lie MULTIPLE TIMES.

2 - It was late at night. Sorry, it was never late at night.  Maybe he's thinking of the speech writing sessions?  The incident was told from a PREPARED speech.

3 - Consider her age  Lots of people forget things  and tire easily as they age - not a direct quote, but close.  (Uh, seriously Bill?) Can you image how the 'hill raisers' would be screaming MISOGYNY had anyone else said that? The assertion is ridiculous, even if you remove the issue of age. She forgot about being shot at, with her child present?

If I was Chelsea, that alone would pull me off the campaign trail.  You can forget my birthday, you can't forget whether or not I was a victim of sniper fire.

If you follow the media, today, you'll see that there were other lies told.  Lies?  You think it's too harsh to use the term?  How else would you characterize them when every point they've made has been debunked almost DAILY, and they continue to tell them?  It's a clear indication that the Clintons don't respect the voters or their supporters and don't expect them to have read, or seen, any news other than the news they chew and regurgitate for them.

There've been a number of articles theorizing whether Bill Clinton is trying to intentionally tank his wife's candidacy, so I won't bring them all up here.  You have to wonder whether this latest slip with Bosnia was raised, again, with the sole intent of hurting Hillary.  The age issue, in particular, has me intrigued and makes me think there's some 'There' there.  Was that Bill Clinton's subtle suggestion that 'youth' matters?  He was, after all, just slightly younger than Obama when he took ffice.  Does he identify more with Obama's campaign: disciplined, youthful and on task, more than his wife's?

This campaign is beginning to make me feel as if I'm in a live action version of "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?". Hillary and Bill have unconsciously cast themselves as Martha and George.  Obama and Pelosi are the unwitting and naive Nick and Honey, unintentionally complicit, frightened, not sure how to get out of the mess, but too intrigued by the train wreck dynamic between the spouses to run away on their own. The only thing missing is a little booze, and not for Martha, for ME, because that's what it takes to get through a Clinton press conference, event, or comments by her surrogates  these days.

I'm probably not the only one who thinks that Chelsea stating that her mother would make a better President, and Bill left agreeing, triggered the revisiting of Bosnia - which was thought to be a dying issue for Hillary.  But now we're back to square one.

The Clinton campaign/marriage isn't a comedy to me.  It's cost this nation, especially our military sons and daughters, too much. It's cost the Democratic party credibility with the voting public for eight long years, so much so that the public sadly viewed someone like George Bush as a better alternative.  Bush would, after all, 'restore honor and dignity to the White House' (another load of bull). Are the Clintons alone responsible, of course not, but their past actions are significantly tied to the misfortunes of the Democratic Party for some time, now.

For me, both the Clinton campaign and marriage, play more like a tragedy.

Obama, and the Democratic Party, have simply become a "third partner" in the marriage. 

Hillary allowed Bill Clinton, long before the road to the White House, destroy any credibility she had as a strong, trustworthy, progressive woman, in my book.  Strength is not shown by tolerating emotionally abusive behavior.  That's a better definition of inaction than strength. Stockholm set in, in my opinion, when she began aiding and abetting him by covering his bad behavior (and again, I refer you to Andrew Young's description of her 'defense committee' before the 1992 run for office). 

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/breSVtVYSmo&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/breSVtVYSmo&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

The first time, rising above a husband's infidelity is a matter of strength.  Every time after that is complicity and self abasement.  If it only happened in the Clinton marriage, it would be their private business.  CLEARLY, Sen. Clinton sees more benefit in being in the marriage than out of it.

The problem for me is that they've begun treating Sen. Obama and the DNC are the third party in this marriage. Obama and the DNC are theirs to do with as they will. The nasty letter from Hillary's donors   read as a letter from a divorce attorney, attempting to intimidate a spouse into dropping a claim for support.  They've decided that they can drag the party and the other Democratic candidate through this 'love/hate' drama and that all should feel honored to be a part of it.

Having already cost the party the House and Senate (for the first time in fifty years for the Senate) wasn't enough.  To have denied the use of additional funds for the 1996 congressional races wasn't enough. That  Bill Clinton began an affair with Monica Lewinsky before those races, on the people's time, on the people's property, in one of the most 'sacred' political spaces - the oval office - when his wife was 'home', wasn't enough.  Knowing that the only thing left to lose, professionally, was the White House, wasn't enough.  That this primary can't be won by Clinton, without overturning the will of the people, isn't enough.  For Bill and Hillary, enough is never enough.

I see as much 'strength' in her staying in this race as I do with all of her other BAD choices she's made.  At some point she has to realize that there are better choices to be made.

What Obama gets from the Clinton camp is the same treatment Hillary gets from Bill.  Obama makes great gains in the polls, the party looks as if it will finally coalesce around a nominee, and out comes the Wright issue from Clintonistas.  Which was, mysteriously, followed up with Obama being asked about the Wright matter on the campaign trail (by a Hillary supporter).

The Clintons have tolerated/loved/adored/abided by/aided and abetted one another for more than three decades.  Whatever they've done to one another is their business - whatever part of it hasn't played out in public.  I, however, object to them treating this party, and this campaign as if it's an 'anything goes' moment in history. It is not. I object to them treating Obama and this party as if we are theirs to dispose of as they please.  Not so. I would like to believe that she's hanging on because she believes she can win.  I do not. 

I think it's time for the DNC, and the voters, to tell the Clintons to take their psychodrama back to upstate New York, play it out in private, and to leave the rest of us in peace.  Divorce is painful, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, but sometimes its necessary to save the family.