Josh seems to be getting increasingly agitated over the mean, dastardly Clintons, and so are his Obama-loving minions.  Just a few hours ago, he felt compelled to clarify an earlier post that, for many of his readers, seemed to go too soft on Hillary.  What he meant to say yesterday, he explained, was not that Hillary was justified in hanging her latest hopes on Florida and Michigan, just that this was her latest "gambit" to explain why she should stay in the race.
Now, I read that first post differently.   I was getting increasingly agitated at the direction it was going in, not to mention this site in general.  But it landed gently with what seemed like a new open-mindedness toward Hillary and -- dare I hope? -- some understanding of, if not sympathy for, her situation.
Apparently I was wrong.
Since there's little chance Clinton's perspective will ever make sense to Josh, or any other Obama supporter, I feel compelled to clarify a few things.
When it comes to gambits, Obama has used every possible one at his disposal, and to great advantage.  Most of these tactics are just plain politics, not any more or less "dirty" than anything Hillary has done (except maybe the "McCarthy" charge.).  But they are political tactics used to gain an edge and ultimately win the nomination.    Nothing wrong with that, whoever does it.  But it's still true, no matter how much you want to believe his "new politics" blather.  Rather, it's the same old "Wolfson" in sheep's clothing.
Here are just some of the tactics Obama and his aides have used in this primary campaign.  It's not complete, but is comprehensive enough to give an idea how much Obama's nice-speak is just double-speak.

He stalled  Florida and Michigan revotes to rule out any chance of Hillary catching up in the delegate or popular vote count, despite these being KEY states needed to win the general election.  This, as chance would have it, further fueled calls for Hillary to drop out, since their elimination made hers more inevitable.

He framed a primary win to mean whoever is ahead in delegates -- and got both the mainstream and liberal press to agree -- even though superdelegates can use any criteria they choose. Neither candidate will reach the magic number of 2024, so neither has a lock on the nomination, or can be denied it, without the superdelegates' say.

He is trying to lure superdelegates en masse to his side to create the impression of a surge toward his candidacy, and stop the race before the voting does.

The campaign is sending out surrogates to pressure Hillary to drop out of the race.  They especially enjoy embarrassing Hillary by having current or former colleagues endorse him, and try to push her out.

 He is trying to run out the clock, reverting to his old stump speech in an effort to play it safe and not make any mistakes.

Obama stood beside Gen. Tony McPeak, lending tacit support as the retired general read his remarks comparing Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy.  And this came after Obama's race speech calling on the campaigns and the media not to look for insidious intent in every statement.

He refused to debate Hillary during his February run of caucus victories.  She needed to stop his momentum, and her only hope was a debate that could give her attention and perhaps trip him up. Being an agile pol, he wasn't about to give her that chance, and said no.

But, proving opportunism often does knock twice, he agreed to debates in Ohio and Texas because this time he needed the exposure.

Promoting a "new politics" while excelling at the old kind.

Questioning her character, beginning last fall, in a cynical attempt to exploit the media's disdain for her.   He challenged her credibility, called her dishonest, and accused her of being a political opportunist, among other charges once reserved for Republicans.  This was way back in October, long before Hillary ever made any personal attacks against him.   To the press, this wasn't "going negative," but simply factual, so they never made note of it. In their eyes, she fired first, even though the reverse is true.

Playing the race card while accusing the Clinton campaign of doing it.   Every slip from a Clinton supporter's mouth was spun as racist, even if it was just stupid, or misguided, or just a normal phrase like "fairy tale" or "hit job."  The campaign circulated press releases and memos to reporters to push this view.  They played upon African Americans' real sensitivity to racial slights, encouraging them toward the worst interpretation rather than something more benign. They inflamed racial tensions rather than defusing them, something a  "postracial" campaign would not do.

I've been noting the last two points for months now, but apparently others in the media -- including Slate's John Dickerson -- are starting to see it, too.

Perhaps I've been listening to Barack Obama too much. In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama argues that "political caricatures and nuggets of conventional wisdom lodge themselves in our brain without us ever taking the time to examine them." As an example of false narratives, he cites none other than those that attach to his challenger: "[A] vote or speech by Hillary Clinton that runs against type is immediately labeled calculating." If I'm inclined to think the worst of Hillary Clinton and her husband, it's the senator who reminds me to recognize alternative interpretations.

Though Bill's remarks are murky, the Obama campaign pronounced judgment by embracing the conventional wisdom that insists the Clintons are always calculating. In recent days, Obama's campaign manager has repeatedly said that Clinton will "say or do anything to get elected," hoping to play on the very caricature his candidate once eschewed.

No battle plan survives contact with the enemy, so it's probably too much to expect the Obama campaign to match the Obama book (though campaign aides would like us to see no space between). Shouldn't Obama supporters let him off the hook—because politics requires a little trimming of standards now and again, and, after all, doesn't Bill Clinton deserve it for his past wrongs if not this one? If you're inclined to that view, Obama's remarks last week should give you pause. In his speech on race, he renewed his covenant with voters about a new kind of politics. He warned against just the kind of thing his campaign seems to now be doing by linking Clinton and McCarthyism. "We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card," he said. "We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change."

If progress can happen only if we stop pouncing on every little thing, then why is the Obama camp madly pouncing? They obviously think it's a dead certainty Clinton was challenging Obama's patriotism. It's not, and Obama's own call to higher political standards should bias the assessment in Clinton's favor. So, either the Obama campaign is consciously overplaying the moment for political benefit, or it is incapable of seeing anything benign coming out of the mouth of Bill Clinton the evil genius—or the evil machine that is the Hillary campaign. The latter would suggest a weakness in judgment that can't distinguish what's really sneaky from what isn't, and Obama is running on his precise judgment.

You may think I'm being picky for taking all of this so seriously. It's just politics, after all. But if we're not supposed to take all of Obama's speeches seriously, we're stuck embracing the Clinton claim that he offers "just words" and doesn't mean what he says. To believe in the full measure of Obama's words then is, perhaps, to be too hopeful.

Josh says:  And I think the simple truth is that it's a lot easier to be magnanimous, take the high road about party unity or simply be less mad if you're confident that your candidate is going to win.
If that's true, it's not borne out by the behavior of Obama supporters at TPM and most other liberal blogs.  Rather than magnanimity, I've seen pettiness, name-calling, cursing, and a level of Clinton paranoia that borders on Hillary-killed-Vince-Foster looniness.  If they're "less mad," I haven't seen that, either.  They're furious Hillary won't get out and hand Obama the election early, rather than make him win it outright -- go the whole slog -- without the media's or Nancy Pelosi's intervention.  If they're "less mad,"  they'll quickly turn more mad if their candidate doesn't win it as they expect -- and demand.  In fact, it's this potential for a head-banging temper tantrum that stands as a silent threat to superdelegates who might vote for Hillary. 
This lack of magnanimity starts at the top with Obama.  He once dismissively called Hillary "likeable enough"; he has spent the past six months tearing down Bill Clinton's presidency and the affection his supporters once had for him.  And I'm not even talking about Clinton's sometimes odd statements on the campaign trail, but his achievements as a once-beloved two-term president with meteoric approval ratings.  In addition, Obama once bragged that his voters wouldn't support Hillary if he loses; sadly, even his wife isn't so sure.  in fact, I'm not convinced Obama himself has the level of maturity and selflessness to support her if she wins.  Clinton-haters like to talk about how they put themselves before party and country, but I see similar traits in Obama.
Magnanimous, indeed.

Wow, Josh's really gone off the deep end with his Scaife post.  Does he really think Hillary Clinton is trying to sic Scaife on Obama so he can experience a little bit of what she has endured over the past 16 years?
Talk about a vast right wing conspiracy.  Only this time, it's coming from the left.

The press pillories Hillary's staff for being rude, bullying and blunt. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way of modern campaigns, especially since the Democrats adopted the new anti-Swiftboating rules that state no charge can go unanswered.  With the number of accusations flying back and forth in this campaign, that's a whole lot of snittliness coming our way.
Although both campaigns do it, reporters seem to notice only when it's being done by Mark Penn or big bad Howard Wolfson.
But David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, proves every day that he can give as good as he gets. His latest snark attack came during today’s conference call during which he both disowned and defended Gen. Tony McPeak’s charge that Bill Clinton was employing McCarthyite tactics:

He also acknowledged, after prodding, that Gen. McPeak's comments, which compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy, didn't have a place in the race, but adamantly insisted that the Clinton campaign had a habit of making inappropriate comments and then saying their meaning was misinterpreted.

So he’s saying McPeak’s accusation was both uncalled for and called for, because Bill’s a meanie and he started it and he made me do it and I’m telling Mom! …
Most important, what he said was just not true. He implies McPeak’s comments were inadvertent, off the cuff, not sanctioned by the campaign. If so, then why did McPeak say the very same thing the day before, why did he read from notes that either he or the campaign had written, and why was Obama standing beside him, giving his tacit consent?
Plouffe can deny and dissemble and say that's not the tone Obama wants to set.
Yet, that's the tone we've heard since last fall, and it's one we're sure to hear more of in the months to come.
Just don't assume it's coming from one side, who's approved it, or who's better at it.

Tim Russert assembled his usual panel of Clinton haters on "Meet the Press" today to consider, among other things, whether Bill Clinton thinks Barack Obama doesn't love his country.  As could be expected, Russert played only the carefully snipped clip portraying Clinton's remarks in the worse possible way.
If he were fair -- which we know he's not -- he would have played a large chunk before and after the offending remarks to show the general context of what Clinton was saying.  But this isn't how the media operates.  They want to stir outrage based not on what a person actually intended to say, but the literal transcription of his or her words.
Bill Clinton was advocating for his wife.  Obviously he wants her to win, so he was envisioning a race between two people, and those two people, in his scenario -- if certainly not the media's -- are Hillary Clinton and John McCain.  
I know the media considers this audacious, since Obama is leading and how dare Clinton talk about the general election when Hillary's losing.  The press  took the same tack when Hillary mentioned Obama as a running mate; she's not allowed to believe she can win, no less consider the guy who probably will as her second banana.  If she didn't believe in herself, she and any other candidate in her place wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning. The audacity!
But let's look at what Bill Clinton actually said -- and, more importantly, meant.  He began the part of his speech leading to "two people who love this country" by calling McCain "an honorable man" and talking about the friendship he and Hillary share, despite their differences on the issues.    While he was saying Hillary and McCain are "two people who love this county," he wasn't saying Obama isn't.  He wasn't denigrating him by omission -- again, how dare he not mention Obama and make his case? -- he was praising McCain.  He was saying McCain is the only Republican you could expect to run, if not a saintly campaign, an above-board and civil one that tries to focus on the issues and "not all that other stuff."  A Giuliani or a Romney would not; they'd use wedge issues and other divisive means to distract people from the issues.  Even here, I don't think he was saying they don't love their country, just that they'd be less bound by ethical restraints.
Was Clinton really saying that anyone other than these "two people" -- the dozen or more candidates on both sides who ran for president this year, or anyone else with that presidential gleam in their eye whom Clinton failed to mention -- don't love their country?  Do we really have to be that literal?  Do we have to hold Bill Clinton to impossible standards and dice and splice and dissect everything he says, attributing only bad motives, never good ones?  Is there any reservoir of good will left for our last good, if not great, Democratic president?  I know the media hates him, but do Democrats have to? 
Remember how they hated Al Gore, called him a liar and a phony and a nerd, and cast everything he did in the worst light? Were they right about that? No. Were many duped by it?  Yes.  Did he lose the election, and pave the way for the most disastrous presidency in our lifetimes?  Yes (assuming you believe he lost.)  Is he now a Democratic hero? Yes.  Does that cause you to reassess the media's character-judging abilities?  It should.
Is it possible the media is up to their old tricks, and are wrong again? Yes. Will we be fooled again?  I certainly hope not.

They're doing it to Bill Clinton again, this time accusing him of calling Barack Obama "unpatriotic." 

Gen. Tony McPeak accused Clinton of McCarthyism today during a rally in Oregon as Obama stood beside him, his arms folded, head down, seeming to agree, or at least not disagree.  McPeak was reading the statement, so it was obviously planned, probably with the campaign's approval. If not, the campaign would have repudiated it by now.

Of course, the cable networks -- CNN just a few hours ago -- and the Associated Press  today took just the snippet that seems to make this case, omitting the fuller context that makes it far less clear -- in fact, makes it seem innocuous.  Even the biggest Clinton mind-reader and word parser -- who swears the man calculates everything, down to the ums and ahs -- would find it hard to interpret it that way in its totality.

Listen to all three, and judge for yourself.  This is the full version:  Here is a shorter version that provides some context, but was still used by "Hardball" and other shows to show Clinton's McCarthyite tendencies. And here is the truncated version that could have the most insidious interpretation, for those seeking it.

This practice of playing carefully edited clips over and over again -- purposely leaving out sentences before and afterward that would give the whole picture -- is the very thing  Obama decried in his excellent speech on race last week. 

We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”

Yet today he stands beside Gen. McPeak, tacitly, if not explicitly, comparing Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy.   And by accepting the most malevolent interpretation of these clips, he is perpetuating the practice he so eloquently condemned.

This episode, combined with the Obama campaign's months-long effort to paint the Clinton as racists, is nothing short of character assassination, and Obama himself is complicit in it.

Every time I try to get used to Obama as the nominee, I recoil when I see him pretend to play the "new politics" game while trouncing Hillary at the old game, with a foul rarely, if ever, called by the refs.  The refs, as you've probably suspected, call fouls only on his opponent.

Trying to win by accusing your opponent's campaign of McCarthyism -- based on no evidence and a lot of suggestion -- could almost be considered McCarthyism itself, based on this definition::

"2. the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, esp. in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

There's no better way to stifle criticism: Make incendiary charges that the media is all too ready to believe, about a political figure they'd like to take down, by a candidate all too willing to accommodate them.

Regarding David Kurtz' post on the dreaded "d" word -- debates: It's one thing for Brian Williams' eyes to glaze over from an extended discussion of health care in a debate. It's another for that bored, pampered view to infect TPM, a site known for its down-in-the-weeds wonkery. I've seen several dismissive references here to the idea of more debates, as though it's all been said and done and what else could we learn and I've already voted and god, shoot me now.

Well, Pennsylvanians haven't voted, and like voters in nearly every primary held this season, they'd like their chance to see and hear the candidates on their turf, speaking to their issues. As we've learned before each contest, voters don't truly pay attention to the race until the candidates turn their attention to them; this accounts for the oft-mentioned praise for Obama that the more people see him, the more they like him. That's probably true, but it's also true that, for many people, it's the first time they've ever seen him. A debate affords one of those first looks.

Notably, one exception to this "one primary, one debate" rule was the series of contests after Super Tuesday, and before Ohio and Texas. That, of course, was when Obama went on his extraordinary February tear, allowing him to run up his delegate tally while running out the clock. During that period, his rallies and wins were all the spotlight he needed to keep his momentum going, and a debate, with its potential to slow his mo-jo, was the last thing he needed. Now, with Pennsylvania looming large and his poll numbers sagging, he sees the need for a debate there, then raises Hillary with a second one in North Carolina.

One argument against more debates is that we've had more than 20, and -- god almighty -- isn't that enough? Well, most of those debates included a stageful of candidates; only the last three have showcased the final two candidates. Three may well be sufficient; that is the usual number for the general election. But this contest shows no signs of ending, and with six weeks before the Pennsylvania primary, the candidates need exposure, the voters need answers, and everyone craves a fumble, or a look, or a moment that will make that choice clearer.

And if we have to hear one more debate over health mandates to see it, then it'll be worth it.