I'm not saying we're there yet, but what would be the signs that so-called "Netroots" has moved from a smart, savvy, often prgamatic and energetic movement to push progressive reform into hubris and power-hunger?

Some suggested signs:

* Start making lists of enemy Democrats you want to defeat -- instead of Republicans

* Requiring all Democrats to kiss their ass publicly and bow down and grovel (sort of like the Religious Right does).

* Liberal use of threats: Defy us and you "will pay!".

* Forget that we've only won a single election cycle (One!) and in many cases by slim margins (VA)

* Act like you are the voice of "The People", when in fact still a minority voice

* Conflate America's souring on the GOP with America becoming suddenly very progressive in all things

* Say things like "Hey, you're 12 points ahead, he can afford to lose a few points of [insert pet issue]"

* Spend all their time threatening/punishing/harassing/badgering politicians for not making unpopular decisions that are losers at the ballot box instead of trying to convince the larger public on the issue (making it easier for the politician to do the right thing)

* Anything that smells like Naderism: the sanctimonious, leftier-than-thou sneering that labels anything too popular or sensible or -- gasp -- winning as "too corporate/mainstream for me". 

* Intolerant attitude towards healthy criticism (Kos' recent remark that if you don't like his refusal to contribute money than "fuck you")

Any others?

Salon's Glen Greenwald, not content with attacking Obama with "extreme criticism" (his word) now is attack Keith Olbermann, for, get this, not attacking Obama enough!

What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he
talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush --
supports them.

Is Greenwald going to be writing columns non-stop from now through November attacking Democrats because they don't fall lockstep with 100% of what Greenwald says? Keith is obviously being a little partisan, but so what? He's virtually the only partisan we have on our side. 

Greenwald is an important voice, and right more often than not. And you've made your point. But please, with all do respect, just give it a rest with the personal attacks. 

Those who think that Barack Obama should not be criticized no matter
how wrong he is -- or those who justify anything that he does no matter
how craven and unjustifiable, including things that they viciously
criticized when done by Dick Cheney or Harry Reid -- are no different,
and no better, than those who treated George Bush with similar
uncritical reverence in 2003 and 2004.

Really? No different or no better? So being partisan (in an election season!) for your candidate who wants to end the war and global warming and national health care  and sit down and talk to our enemies is <em>no different</em> than being partisan for a candidate who wants to torture people and start wars?  That's exactly the asinine misplaced anger that led to many liberals beating up on Clinton in 1998 and on Gore in 2000. As if Democrats, however flawed, were in anyway comparable to the GOP which is bleeding the country dry.  According to Greenwald's insane logic, being a car-carrrying member of the ACLU is no different than being a member of the Nazi party -- both are loyal to their cause, so they must be the same.

And let's all remember that this type of Leftier-than-Thou extremism, that seems to positively <em>delight</em> in smearing Democrats much mroe than Republicans actually,  helped bring us Bush in 2000, when the then not-so-glamorous but still very much environmentalist Gore was disparaged as Tweedledee, practically a carbon copy of GWB. Thanks to stubborn, selfish "Naderism" then, we have illegal wiretapping and torture now. 

I've always suspected this of the Politico, which is being treated by the MSM as impartial. Their tone, however, is very much slanted.

Speaking of Politico's sycophantic service to the GOP, Allen's colleague, David Paul Kuhn, today has an article
about how gay marriage is going to help McCain win the election and
doom Obama among independents and working class voters. Last week, Kuhn
wrote an article
reporting that GOP operatives were excited about the prospects of
McCain winning in a "blowout." Several weeks before that, Kuhn wrote an article
about how the Iraq War's growing popularity among Americans would be a
huge asset for McCain and doom the Democratic candidate. Not even the
most shameless GOP hack makes such absurdly optimistic claims about the
GOP's electoral chances -- at least not out in the open. They just have
Kuhn and Politico do it for them.

I once thought that Politico would be a pernicious new
addition to our rotted media culture. Instead, it actually provides a
valuable service by packing every destructive and corrupt journalistic
attribute, in its most vivid form, into one single cesspool.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/30/allen/index.html

Glad to see Greenwald nail them.

I know lots of people have been complaining that they are sick of the primaries already, and I am too. But now that they are winding down, and the end does seem to be near, strangely I'm feeling a little nostalgic: The drama, the ups and downs, the combat, the controversy, and just plain not knowing how it would turn out. Remember Iowa? It seems like a year has passed. The political blogs were the first thing I checked in the morning at work, and a big topic of conversation. One thing is for sure: It certainly has been a lot of fun.

I guess now we'll all have a little more free time, at least until the general election gears up (when we'll really need some revitalized energy). A break from all this is probably good for mental health reasons. Some family members split over Obama-Clinton can maybe start talking to each other again. Heck, even Josh took off to reconnect with his family (a key indicator that the race is over, btw). Probably a good idea for all.  

Thoughts?

Flashback: Senator Clinton, last week, calling the contest a “game-changer,” said: “North Carolina will decide the next president of the United States.”

http://208.76.84.21/thefield/

From Slate:

On today’s “state of the race” conference call, a
reporter asked about an exchange between Hillary Clinton and Bill
O’Reilly on yesterday’s show in which Clinton uttered the words, “Rich
people—God bless us.”

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson denied that’s what she said: “She said ‘God blessed us.’ B-L-E-S-S-E-D.”

That may be what she meant. But it’s definitely not what she said. I just watched the video again with headphones and cranked the volume way up. Not a trace of plosive after the sibilant.

Here’s the full context, as described by the Huffington Post:

[O’Reilly said,] “I'm not middle class, I'm a rich guy.” Clinton responded (in an awkward moment), “Rich people, God bless us. We deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue until the next generation.”

Watch the video yourself (at about 1:55):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9X_nnEJmHM

So is Wolfson lying? Is Hillary trying to cover up a gaffe? You know, saying "god bless the rich" sounds a lot like god isn't blessing the poor. Does that play in these tough economic times?

The Politico mentioned this in an article:

 The Obama side is frustrated with the news media for not carrying more
of its argument. His operatives thought a Newsday story looking
exhaustively at her legal career — including the revelation that as a
young lawyer she attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim
— would provoke a herd of other coverage. It did not happen.

From the Newsday article:

However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting
to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to a Newsday
examination of court and investigative files and interviews with
witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.

If you're interested, there's more commentary at Daily Kos.

Imagine if lawyer Obama had destroyed a child rape victim's life like this. But since it is supposedly feminist Hillary who participated in the proverbially "second rape" in the courtroom, we hear crickets. Is this what she meant by "working with children"?

This is quite disturbing, and the media's covering it up or ignoring it is quite remarkable. This, the same crew that breathlessly covers what the candidates are eating and wearing. Surely, a story about Hillary badgering a child rape victim would sell papers, no? Why no TV interviews with the victim? Why no followup? Why no peppering of Hillary as she boards her bus?
 

* Mayhill Fowler, faux-journalist posing as faux-"Obama supporter", desperate to grab a Macaca moment right before the PA primary. A Hillary plant?

*Former Clinton staffer Stephanopolis's tabloid debate, mostly dwelling on McCarthyesque questioning of Obama's patriotism and pushing rightwing talking points, days before the PA primary

*Geraldine Ferraro's 'dog-whistle- affirmative action attacks ahead of PA primary

*Tearing up the day before the New Hampshire primary

* Hillary supporter arranges Rev. Wright's appearance before National Press Club, one week before Indiana and NC primaries

* NOW's false attacks questioning Obama's abortion stance before Super Tuesday

* NAFTA-gate, conservative CA government meddling, which was fact-checked only after the Ohio and Texas primaries


It's worth noting that Clintonista deny all of these and use a strategy of plausible deniability or just muddying the waters (NAFTA, especially). Just like Bushies deny that Bush and Rove ever used dirty tricks against their opponents. Yeah, right. As if anyone believes that Clinton is unwilling to use such tactics or incapable of this sort of scheming and string pulling.


Curiously, there's been little investigative journalism into these little "surprises" that always popup right before primaries that manage to keep Hillary's campaign alive. Bloggers have looked into but Hillary has never paid a price for these ploys which later turn out to be false or misleading, or just ugly.  A case in point is Hillary supporter and Obama-critic Barbara Reynolds who was the point person arranging Wright's ill-timed appearance at the NPC. (more at Kos)

So why does hillary get a pass, and the media take each very predictable pre-election "bombshell" at face value?

This one was dug up by Merle in a previous post (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/1992-flashback-superdelegates.php#comment-2751389)

Democratic handwringing, superdelegate doubts, dire warnings about electability ... Sound familiar?

 THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Primaries; DOUBTS OF VOTERS TEMPER EUPHORIA IN CLINTON'S CAMP
By R. W. APPLE JR.
Published: April 9, 1992

Troubling the party's leaders, including Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York, who discussed the problem with Mr. Clinton by phone late Tuesday night, was the fear that hand-to-hand combat among the Democrats in the three months before their convention would play into President Bush's hands.

Democratic officeholders and strategists were split over what to do next. Some sought a negotiated cease-fire; some pressed for a new candidacy. As Mr. Clinton's Southern supporters in the Senate circulated a letter in an effort to persuade uncommitted delegates to endorse him, others like Representative Don Edwards of California tried to persuade colleagues not to act yet.

Asked how he could win, Mr. Brown answered, "The scenario would be winning Pennsylvania and Clinton stumbling in some continuing way that would render him unsatisfactory to enough of the delegates. We'll see what happens."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDF173DF93AA35757C0A964958260&scp=58&sq=clinton+superdelegate&st=nyt

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA133FF933A25757C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts About Clinton
By R. W. APPLE JR.,
Published: April 10, 1992

"The voters haven't embraced Clinton, so I don't see any reason why I should endorse him," Mr. Eckart said. "Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we're talking about Democrats."

Eventually, most of the superdelegates are likely to back Mr. Clinton, if only because there is no place else for them to go. But they will do so "with extreme reluctance," one said, and the delay and the grudging spirit makes it harder for Mr. Clinton to move his campaign onto a higher plateau, free of character issues.

The Clinton campaign pointed out that Michael S. Dukakis was in much the same situation four years ago, and won easily on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention. But the reluctance in 1988 stemmed mainly from unwillingness to offend Jesse Jackson, who was still an active candidate; this year it stems largely from fears about Mr. Clinton's weakness, not from any fear of angering Edmund G. Brown Jr., Mr. Clinton's only active rival. 'Clinton May Self-Destruct'

So the party insiders and talking heads are as prescient as ever! The only really winning Democrat in memory, and they had "big doubts". Sound familiar?

Don't trust exits!!!! Those Drudge numbers are seriously misleading.

But this is interesting from CNN:

"Fifty-eight percent of those voters said they chose the New York senator. That includes voters who made up their mind in the aftermath of last week's heated Democratic debate."

That is a few points shy of Ohio's 20s margin of undecideds that broke for her.

With an avg of 8 undecideds in most of the polls, and a margin of 5 or 6 for Clinton, if she gets 58% of the undecideds that's like 5 extra pts. = 10 or 11.

So Hillary might win by 11. Brace yourself.

Don't trust the unweighted exit polls!
http://blog.brendanloy.com/2008/04/dont-trust-the.html

Scary:

Former senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him."

"I've witnessed a lot of his temper and outbursts," Smith said. "For me, some of this stuff is relevant. It raises questions about stability. . . . It's more than just temper. It's this need of his to show you that he's above you -- a sneering, condescending attitude. It's hurt his relationships in Congress. . . . I've seen it up-close."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224_pf.html

Remind me again, why anyone likes this jerk?

Hillary's new fearmongering ad is pure hypocrisy.

The Clintons refused to pull the triggter when the CIA had him in their sights:

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government.  It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps.  The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden?  NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

...

Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live.  The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

“It’s dynamite.  It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11.  But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.


“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

Looking at RCP's PA polling numbers, one thing I've noticed is that Obama doesn't break 42% in almost all of the polls.

Poll    Date    Sample    Clinton    Obama    Spread
RCP Average    04/17 - 04/20    -    48.8    43.5    Clinton +5.3
Zogby Tracking    04/19 - 04/20    602 LV    48    42    Clinton +6.0
Suffolk    04/19 - 04/20    600 LV    52    42    Clinton +10.0
PPP (D)    04/19 - 04/20    2338 LV    46    49    Obama +3.0
Strategic Vision (R)    04/18 - 04/20    LV    48    41    Clinton +7.0
Quinnipiac    04/18 - 04/20    1027 LV    51    44    Clinton +7.0
Mason-Dixon    04/17 - 04/18    625 LV    48    43    Clinton +5.0

(This is probably garbled in the formatting so look here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html)

Also, the numbers never add up to 100%, which means we have late deciders, who will probably break for the known quantity (Hillary). 

If we use this ceiling as a benchmark, 100 - 42 = 58, we get 58% for Hillary and a 16 pt spread.