What is wrong with this guy??!! First off, he will not let go of his constant need to trumpet: "I saw this battle coming!" BFD, Chris!

But here's what really bugs me: He keeps saying that the Stupak amendment is a reasonable compromise between those who support a woman's right to have an abortion and those who do not. Here's the problem with your "compromise," Chris: Those who do not support a woman's right to have an abortion do not support a legal medical procedure. What if a group sprang up that was against C-sections and what if they had some political clout? Would Matthews say "no federal funds, subsidies or exchange coverage for C-sections" is a reasonable compromise between those who support C-sections and those who don't? Of course not. The very idea is ridiculous.

So, there may be a political reason to seek a compromise with those who would deny women the right to have an abortion, but there sure isn't a legal one. And Chris Matthews seems not to recognize that distinction at all.

Okay, not her political career as a Senator. As far as I know.

But she might as well hang up her aspirations ever to be the Democratic nominee for President. And for that she can thank her PUMA-like supporters, who have apparently decided to toss her career onto the funeral pyre of their rage at Sen. Obama.

God I hate belonging to this party. Is there a progressive party somewhere that doesn't have the Clintons in it, or anyone like them?

Which reminds me -- Anderson Cooper just referred to "Bill Clinton supporters." Bill Clinton's got supporters? What the hell for?

Okay, I had the T.V. on MSNBC -- actually, it's still there, but I have it on mute. Chris Matthews with Republican tool Mike Murphy, plus Jim Vandehei and Roger Simon from the right-leaning politico.com. I thought, Well, let's see how it goes... Jim Vandehei immediately began "concern trolling" for how badly Hillary was being treated. Please! As I've mentioned elsewhere, Hillary apparently told the Obama campaign she didn't want to be vetted unless she was going to be picked. So that was a non-starter.

As for consulting Bill and Hillary -- which is what Vandehei was going on about when I had to put it on mute ("Think about it! He didn't even consult her!") -- for all we know, he did. But, assuming he didn't, my first reaction was: How could he? Why would he? Wouldn't that be kinda like a guy consulting his ex-girlfriend on what kinda woman he should date next? ("What do you think, Hill? Big tits or a fine ass?") And wouldn't consulting Bill Clinton be like consulting his ex-girlfiend's dad? And aren't the PUMAs all like her best friends and sorority sisters?

The analogy's not perfect, and in fact, it sounds pretty sexist. (I apologize in advance to anyone who might be offended.) But really, this whole thing's INSANE!

Gee, that's McCain's strategy too. It's almost as if Obama was right when he said: "They'll say I have a funny name. They'll say I don't look those other guys on the dollar bills."

You're thinking about voting for him.

That's the Obama team's response to McCain's new smear.

"On a day when major news organizations across the country are taking Senator McCain to task for a steady stream of false, negative attacks, his campaign has launched yet another. Or, as some might say, 'Oops! He did it again.'"

http://www.tmz.com/2008/07/30/oh-baby-baby-obama-fires-back/

I've seen about 4 or 5 youtubes of Clinton supporters who are so they angry they say they'll vote for McCain, and all but one of them are from New York -- which makes sense, of course. But I wonder if anyone has looked at whether this is representative of Clinton's most impassioned "McCainocrat" supporters. And if it is, is anyone really worried that New York will go Republican in the general election?

... close the deal with racists? Is he not reaching them? Not connecting with them in some way?

Has everyone seen this? It's been kicking around for a while, but I guess the Clintons are floating another trial balloon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html

Anyway, I found this line curious:

"Clinton loyalists on the Rules Committee would have to be persuaded to put their political futures on the line by defying major party constituencies, especially black leaders backing Barack Obama. Committee members are unlikely to take such a step unless they are convinced that Clinton has a strong chance of winning the nomination."

Kinda circular, isn't it? Committee members wouldn't take this step unless convinced she had a strong chance of winning the nomination -- and yet, for her to have any chance at all, they have to take this step???

So, in support of her doomed bid for the Democratic nomination, Hillary's going to embroil the Congress in her machinations??!

You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the Teri Schiavo bill. Except here it's being driven by one Senator who wants to be President. ONE SENATOR.

There seem to be two sets of overlapping arguments that state the liberal blogosphere’s opposition to Obama’s appearance on Fox:

FWIW: Jedreport has a post about "TPM's strange reaction to Obama on Fox."

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/tpms-strange-re.html

I have to agree. Maybe it's some kinda atmospheric disturbance. Whatever. It'll pass.

Looking around the blogosphore, it appears that the Hillary shills (example: Taylor Marsh at huffingtonpost) think they smell blood in the water, which proves two things: (1) they’ve been breathing the befuddling fumes of Hillary’s own sputtering campaign for so long now that they think last night's "gotcha" moderators raised "real" issues that voters care about; and (2) history - even recent history - is no guide for them.

The pounce on Obama's comments about rural voters -- in which the gist of what Obama was saying is ignored and Obama's made out to be an elitist, notwithstanding Hillary's vulnerabilities in this area -- seems not a lot different from anything Mark Penn might do.

But is it the same? Am I missing some way in which this might work that Penn's similar tactics did not?

And if it's the same, what is it that's different about Garin? Does it have less to do with campaign tactics and more to do with just working better with other members of the campaign than Penn did?

I've gotten curious now that we're seeing him in action for the first (I think) time!

My eye fell upon Howard Dean's statement: "Nobody tells you when to get out!" And it struck me just how well the movie line fits this particular phase of the Clinton campaign:

"Nobody puts baby in the corner!"