Until today, I have been proudly telling anyone who asks that we have two great Democratic candidates for president and that I support both equally.  I still believe that either Obama or Hillary would execute the office capably and particularly if blessed with a true Democratic majority in House and Senate could make significant headway towards repairing the damage of the Bush catastrophe.  I think they'd both make a great president.
But I no longer think Hillary is a great candidate.

I had been forgiving Hillary her increasingly sharp attacks with the rationale that she might have been trying to help innoculate Obama from the inevitable attacks he will face if he wins the nomination.  That it helps her cause would be acceptable, but she hadn't really crossed any lines until today.  Today, however, it became clear that Hillary has fallen prey to the Iron Law of Institutions and is no longer operating for the good of the country, but purely for her own selfish interest.
The bruhaha over Geraldine Ferraro's comments is not just a tempest in a teapot.  As I indicated in my first post here on TPMCafe, the "racist two-step" clearly indicates one thing: a lack of leadership.  What Mr. Ferraro is saying is completely unacceptable in any public figure, and the reaction by the Clinton campaign makes it clear that they have not just read the Rove Playbook, they're operating by it.  
We don't need to become Repugnican to beat them at the ballot box.  I want more, better Democrats, and Hillary has just shown me that she is not.  She is self-serving, and that is the last thing we need in the White House.

I've been thinking about how Obama could blunt the coming attack.  We've know the form of the attack for some time; the only thing they've got is calling him names.  It will be oblique, careful, and deniable, but boiled down to its core Obama will be called two things: a "terrorist" and a "nigger."  Boy, that's ugly when it's said out loud, isn't it?
As among others Digby and a TPM reader pointed out, the nature of the attack has now become clear.  It will be a pretty dance of flunkies calling the names while the leadership denounces it.  Digby calls it "Cokie's law", but I think the term "racist two-step" catches the behavior more directly.
So what can be done?  It's pretty straightforward: reject the denunciation by making it about lack of leadership.  What kind of a leader repeatedly involves racists into his campaign?  What kind of a party is filled with such unapologetic racists that they won't listen to their putative leaders?
Oh, yeah, and make sure to repeat that all-important pejorative -- one of the most powerful words in the language, the only epithet that can be said unapologetically on television and in print.   Say it over and over and over.  
Republicans are racists.  Are you a Republican?