"I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for."

So this is the new public raison d'etre for the continuation of the Clinton campaign: she must take this all the way to Denver to make sure every vote counts, she must fight for the rights of Michiganders and Floridians if no one else will.

Reading between the lines, I see this as a signal by Hillary to the superdelegates that she isn't going to quit ... they're going to have to step in themselves and end this.  She knows that the last thing the superdels want is a bloody convention fight.  Dean and others are already on record saying they want this thing settled a couple months before the convention.  So, Hillary ups the ante, she won't go quietly into that great night, signaling to the party leadership that they'll have to take her out themselves.

Why?  She must see the writing on the wall.  She must understand this is over for all intents and purposes.  But, once the dust settles, she wants to be able to claim that she was unjustly pushed out while attempting to stand up against voter disenfranchisement.  She wanted all the votes to count, "they" didn't. 

This is the 2012 set up:  she's not the party insider we all thought she was (despite the fact Bill is an ex pres).  She's the real outsider.  The insiders shut her down before the race was really over; they stole it from her and from the people whose rights she was fighting to vindicate.  With this narrative, she will set herself up as the outsider we need in 2012 to bring real change after Bush-Bush-McCain.  This will also be a justification for a luke-warm at best endorsement of Obama heading into the general.  I mean, how can she really go out and stump for a candidate when she has been unfairly pushed aside by the powers that be?

This race will never come down to the convention floor.  The leadership won't allow that to happen.  Hillary is signaling that they must take action to avoid this nightmare, she will not spare them that inevitably controversial decision.  She's letting them know that the blood will have to be on their hands.

Thanks Hillary.  Ever doing what makes your party stronger.  What leadership.

I have a proposal: no more responses to, or recognition of Marginal Player.  Many of you have seen his inane posts, you know, he's that dude with the ice-cream head.  Here is an excerpt his most recent:

"While Senator Empty Suit of eloquent rhetoric can sell this to the Kool-Aid drinkers, black supremacists, and guilty liberal white latte/brie types, Obama will have his racist supporting butt handed to him by the GOP. The Rev. Wright tape that will give on and on. God Bless Reverend Rev. Jeremiah Wright, keep those tapes a coming."

It is apparent that Marginal Player has nothing productive to add to the dialogue on this site...he only seeks to inflame.  So lets not give him this satisfaction.  Any who agree, please hit recommend so we can get more folks to ignore the troll.

Obama, Clinton, I got this idea, let me know what you think: ceasefire for just like a week.  Ok?  Look, this thing has been dragging on longer than any of us thought.  I gotta say, I'm a little tired.  I've been following all this pretty closely, and have to admit I'm way into it.  It does make for some high stakes drama.  It's 3am and the Candians are leaking my tax returns to Farrakhan so Ferraro will evict me from my Rezko financed home but it's ok because my pastor thinks I've crossed the "luck" threshold and now qualify to be VP of the Significant States of America.  I mean damn.

You two must be exhausted too.  So, take a rest.  Lets all meet back here at say 9am EST on Monday, March 24th.  In the mean time, no speeches, no conference calls, no TV appearances, no emails, no surrogates, and please no debates.  We all need some down time.  Do whatever it is you do when you aren't campaigning.  I mean, go vote on a bill or something.  Eat dinner at home.  Watch TV .... no no, not cable news ... something mind-numbing ... ok point taken, something mind-numbing other than cable news ... no I wasn't including you Tucker, you certainly are conservative, hip, and provacative, no ordinary feat.

As for us, we need a brake too.  No offense, but it's gotten to the point where it's pretty easy to predict the tenor of most posts just from the title of the headline.  About 7% are pro-Obama, 60% are anti-Hillary, 20% are anti-Obama, 3% are pro-Hillary, and 10% are incomprehensible.  Spicoli's no exception, he tends to waffle between the first two categories (with an occasional foray into the fifth), and might find himself in the second category more often than he likes to admit.  So lets all take the week to work on some new material and then reconvene.  I'm sure we all have friends, families, and jobs that would like to hear from us.

Smoke em if you got em.


If you think whatever I wrote above is vaguely decent, or not, please hit recommend.

Obama, Clinton, I got this idea, let me know what you think: ceasefire for just like a week.  Ok?  Look, this thing has been dragging on longer than any of us thought.  I gotta say, I'm a little tired.  I've been following all this pretty closely, and have to admit I'm way into it.  It does make for some high stakes drama.  It's 3am and the Candians are leaking my tax returns to Farrakhan so Ferraro will evict me from my Rezko financed home but it's ok because my pastor thinks I've crossed the "luck" threshold and now qualify to be VP of the Significant States of America.  I mean damn.

You two must be exhausted too.  So, take a rest.  Lets all meet back here at say 9am EST on Monday, March 24th.  In the mean time, no speeches, no conference calls, no TV appearances, no emails, no surrogates, and please no debates.  We all need some down time.  Do whatever it is you do when you aren't campaigning.  I mean, go vote on a bill or something.  Eat dinner at home.  Watch TV .... no no, not cable news ... something mind-numbing ... ok point taken, something mind-numbing other than cable news ... no I wasn't including you Tucker, you certainly are conservative, hip, and provacative, no ordinary feat.

As for us, we need a brake too.  No offense, but it's gotten to the point where it's pretty easy to predict the tenor of most posts just from the title of the headline.  About 7% are pro-Obama, 60% are anti-Hillary, 20% are anti-Obama, 3% are pro-Hillary, and 10% are incomprehensible.  Spicoli's no exception, he tends to waffle between the first two categories (with an occasional foray into the fifth), and might find himself in the second category more often than he likes to admit.  So lets all take the week to work on some new material and then reconvene.  I'm sure we all have friends, families, and jobs that would like to hear from us.

Smoke em if you got em.


If you think whatever I wrote above is vaguely decent, or not, please hit recommend.

I begin with the premise that all Democrats want a fighter in the White House.  A more progressive agenda will not come easily.

Hillary supporters take pride in the fact she is "a fighter," which is undeniable.  As recent examples, her wins in TX and OH, and her determination in the face of a seemingly insurmountable pledged delegate lead speak to this fact.   But, is Obama not a fighter as well?  He has taken on the establishment candidate who began with far more name recognition, funding, and support from party insiders (see, e.g., her early substantial lead among superdels), and he has defied the odds, garnering more pledged delegates, total delegates, votes, and states.  Is that not fighting (especially when his opponent is herself such "a fighter")?

So, we have two candidates who are willing to fight to be their party's nominees.  The question is not desire or effort, it is means.  We all have ends that we believe are worth fighting for with everything we have.  But we also believe that not all means for attaining those ends are ethical or proper.  Thus, though all Dems want a candidate who will fight, not all of us are willing to support the deployment of "kitchen sink" tactics.  I for one have never thought we should stoop to the Rovian level; we should fight with issues, with dignity, and appeal to the better angels of our collective nature. 

Now, I don't think Hillary's means are totally Rovian, but she is coming increasingly close.  With Obama having essentially secured the pledged delegate lead, Hillary has embarked upon full smear tactic mode in an attempt to scare superdels to her side...maybe she is also trying to show them what "a fighter" she is.  Can we not condemn these means while still calling for a Democrat who is willing to fight?  Though there will certainly be some cynics among you, I think that he is making an ethical decision about how we should fight for our collective ends.  This is one of the more compelling aspects of his candidacy.

So, alas, I guess I am just tired of hearing the "she's a fighter" excuse for Hillary's actions.  It implies that he is too much of a softie, and that her means of fighting justify her ends.  I won't buy it.  We are better than this.