I see we're still in Bizzaro world where only Obama and his campaign ever do anything bad. Even when they're not the ones who initiated the firestorm, and especially when Obama has never called her a racist, and was actually quite gentle in his response when asked about it. Whoops, sorry, can't mention that here.

I'm surprised you worry about Obama's chances considering he has higher numbers than Hillary in almost all national polls. In fact, recently CNN did a poll to see who could likely win more states. Obama did, funnily enough. In my opinion they're both equally weak candidates and we've eliminated the really strong ones. I'm not sure I see any point in then trashing one of the potential nominees so it'll be even harder for them to win. Whatever. Then again the new face of OneGoodMove (Mr. C. Lemos) has already said he'd rather have McCain win and bomb Iran and kill thousands of people and then wait for Edwards in 08 rather then let Obama win.

On the topic of John Edwards, I'm not sure I'm so content to join this Edwards loving. I've been a bit suspicious of him ever since I read John Kerry's quotes where he says that while talking to him about being VP, John Edwards said he would tell him a story he had never shared with anyone (the story was that at his son's funeral, he had climbed onto the grave and hugged his son and promised never to let it happen again, or so). I thought this was a really nice thing but then Kerry says that Edwards had told him this story some time ago as well, with the same preface. And Kerry apparently found that a bit chilling, and it doesn't rub off so well on me either. Now of course, many things are possible, Edwards might have a bad memory, or Kerry might be remembering it wrong, but I just thought I'd bring that up. I've always been a pro-Edwards guy but if that story is true, then I don't know what to think.

I really don't understand all the partisan rancor on this site regarding Obama vs. Clinton. Neither candidate is spectacular, nor is either spectacularly bad. A thousand years from now -- if the planet is still inhabited by humans -- historians will look upon the Clinton/Obama presidency more or less the way we now look back on the Roman Emperor Claudius -- some good, some bad, but mostly lost to the mists of time. Neither Clinton nor Obama will bring the "change" they are promising, and neither will be as bad as their detractors advise. I'm surprised that so many otherwise intelligent observers of our culture are allowing themeselves to get all het up over a mostly bogus "contest" between two very similar candidates.

but after South Carolina it pretty much stopped. I can't say whether it stopped for reasons of politics or reasons of principle, but it stopped. But the accusations of racism haven't.

Were there accusations I missed in the interum between SC and the 3AM ad?

Internet rambling of course, but not from the campaign or major media?

It started back up when, the Clinton camp started making borderline statements again.

I have to say I agreed with everything Obama's pastor said, but without the black perspective (I'm from the Upton Sinclair/Robert Anson Heinlein wing of the (un,un,...un)abomer party). Imperialism is tedious, not worth it, and it is getting ooold. Ironically it was Lincoln Republican, federal govt. on steroids, yankee imperialism (and manifest destiny) that set the default.

Obama was weak on NPR this morning (I dozed through him twice), but can that nasal, monotone, albino caterpiller, McCain, really light anyone's, fire? He's Bob Dole dull, George "Vision Thang" Bush beaten.

.

Vain, Israel (and US)'s divide and conquer ploy is so knee-jerk, it was bound to be done carelessly. If Dubai can build all these artificial Islands in the Persian Gulf, couldn't a prophet arise who leads (them) to somewhere, in the Pacific maybe, to an artificial Hawaii, a platform capable of being raised to compensate for global melting, it could be the new, hip, Israel, Israel 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, whatever it is up to by now, with a temple and everything (jobs for musicians).

Just get out of Dodge, evacuate the slopes of Vesuvius. Let the Palestinians discover the joys of family planning on their own, without a convenient scapegoat/occupier. How's that for a woodie (is a Country Squire an e.g. of a "woodie"?) plank in the (un,un,...un)abomer party platform?

It lights my fire.

RE: The Hillary Feeding Frenzy

Hillary's comments about John McCain being commander-in-chief material were indefensible, and there's no question that she's running a very hardnosed campaign. At this point it looks an awful lot like it's only going to get worse, and it's going to get worse even though she has virtually no chance of winning. I wish she'd withdraw gracefully. But that said, she's not the devil and the fever swamp should be left back in the swamp where it belongs. Can we please bring some sanity back to the blogosphere?

This is a good post. A honest evaluation of the situation, imho. I also agree that many Obama supporters are blowing things out of proportion. I hope the Hillary supporters take note of this, because this is how many of you were acting in the lead up to Texas & Ohio.

Both candidates are fighting hard to win, and their supporters are going to try anything and everything. Please, let's try to elevate the conversations, and always make the effort to understand other points of view.

I see we're still in Bizzaro world where only Obama and his campaign ever do anything bad. Even when they're not the ones who initiated the firestorm, and especially when Obama has never called her a racist, and was actually quite gentle in his response when asked about it. Whoops, sorry, can't mention that here.

One point I think needs discussing is how the media, the campaigns and the supporters blur the source of statements. Supporters are quoted as campaign staff, campaign staff are quoted as the candidate and random quack jobs on forums are quoted as average supporters. It also runs the reverse way as supporters defended the candidate by pointing out that something was said by a staffer and not the candidate, or by supporters and not staff...etc...

What responsibility does the candidate have over these various levels of his campaign? How do people outside of the two camps view what is said by the different levels of the campaign. What responsibility does the media have in applying appropriate weight to the source of statements?

It's the middle question that worries me the most, as most outsiders will lump everything they hear together, and the crazy supporter is often the most noticeable. If democrats do ruin their chances for the general election it will be because of the rank and file not being able to hold a civil debate. The candidates can influence how wild the debate becomes, but that influence is limited.

Seriously, I think this race has caused some people to lose their heads a bit. The worst thing is that it has turned normally objective and intelligent people into partisan talking heads.

No one bothers to step back for a moment and think about the situation from an objective position. If they did, they would realize how stupid this all is.

For example, calling this the "latest round of Hillary bashing". Despite the fact that none of them had anything to do with starting this. Yet somehow, this is all Obama's fault.

As another example, we can take the SNL example. Norm happily posts videos of SNL making Hillary seem victimized and against media bias. Consider, for a moment, if SNL had done any pro-Obama shorts. Then we would have Norm or Charles Lemos attacking them breathlessly just like Lemos did with Olbermann.

I do think that we should be able to win the general election easily, and all we're doing is making it worse. And while our faithful bloggers here may prefer a McCain victory if it means they could get Edwards or Clinton in 2012, I don't. I want a Democrat in the White House. I'm not willing to accept the threat of more war just to jump on the partisan bandwagon and feel important.

As I've read through the links and posts here, I had to go into what the candidates have been saying lately. There are things that both democratic candidates have going for them, and they all have to do with something besides the current war. Democrats can talk about how they'd get us out of the mess in Iraq and not go to Iran, sure, but that's McCain's territory. Dems need to show that they have the upper hand on education, health care, the environment (a clear win over "0" score McCain) the economy, and NOT bow only to the national security debate: who's ready to roll on day 1.

Clinton needs to back off the notion that whoever faces McCain in the fall will need to go toe to toe with him on national security. If she's in the spot, she'll have dug her own grave. We already had a campaign that seemed to run on responses to the opposition. Kerry drove me crazy trying to defend himself against Rove last go round. This time, the Democrats need to set the tone. Duh, the war is important, but there are other issues that play into that scenario and into our lives, as in the few mentioned above.

I don't get it. Regardless of her campaign strategy, why would any of you want to vote for Clinton anyway?

By voting for her you're tacitly endorsing the invasion of Iraq. That, or you're voting for a President who claims to have been duped into voting for the carrying out of the supreme international crime.

done devo demo:

My thoughts exactly!

If Obama had the balls to say these things, he would have usurped Ron Paul as the official chairman to the disillusioned and insane.

However, I have to say that people are really reaching here. As the commenter says in the clip: no one is sure if Obama was even in church those days.

If my pastor stood up and said "All gays should be put in camps", I certainly wouldn't agree with it. Am I somehow guilty by association? I don't get it.

I'm just glad the Hillary camp is getting exposed for exactly what they are: Machiavellians.

By voting for her you're tacitly endorsing the invasion of Iraq.

That is precisely why I lean towards Obama.

The Vanity Fair article leads one to ask, for the millionth time, why do Americans want so badly to run the world? First Bush's neocons push for elections in Gaza, and then they're bewildered when the "wrong guys" win. Then they decide to fund an insurrection against Hamas and then they can't deliver - and it appears that even if they had, their side would have lost.

Now the discredited neocons are whining about the Rice's failure to fix things their policies put in place! This imperialist stupidity just goes on and on and Bush's government seems destined to take the crown as the most idiotic ever.

Duh, the war is important, but there are other issues that play into that scenario and into our lives, as in the few mentioned above.

I agree, but the Iraq War is the major reason that we face all of our current problems. This damned war has cost us over $502,000,000,000, has resulted in about 700,000 Iraqis killed, about four million refugees, and about 4000 dead American soldiers, and I don't know how many soldiers from other countries as we don't seem to give a damn about these statistics.

And it has been difficult for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as concerns their votes on Iraq because of the "support our troops", "wear you flag pin" nationalistic type of drama that is stated over and over again here. I was listening to Chris Matthews say that to be elected president, the candidate has to believe in American "exceptionalism". It's enough to make me want to vomit. And yet this is the very reason that Obama has been tagged as being anti-American for not wearing a damned flag pin. So ridiculous. And this is why Hillary Clinton voted to ban flag burning. They both have to pander to the extreme right and nationalist exceptionalism type of rhetoric.

McCain more Hawkish than Bush

so what? We're all busy ripping apart Hillary and Barack...

JoAnn thinks it will be McCain in 2008 I'm more optimistic I'm betting it's John Edwards in 2012. I'd really like to be wrong about 08 but . . .

Well, Hillary started it when she forced Obama to "denounce" and shit and went on the war path with her "Shame on you Barack Obama". If it were not for the diviseness, either Hillary or Barack could win. But Democrats have been behaving like children. Edwards in 2012 eh? Instead of Gore for four years, we had Bush. Instead of Kerry for the next four years, we had Bush again. And now McCain for another four years!!? When will we ever learn!?

"I agree, but the Iraq War is the major reason that we face all of our current problems. "

While I agree with this statement, the cause and effect is cyclical. If the Democrats allow the war to be the primary agenda in the fall, they will lose. If they give equal time to other issues, they are more likely to win the oval office. McCain won't be able to win on the other issues, but he'll appeal more to the fearful with the anti-terrorism rhetoric and qualifications.

I didn't provide links to the articles I read, because I am unsure whether Clinton really stresses national security that much in her speeches and talks, of if that's what the media picks up on. There was only 1 link in 10 to a multi-issue talk with Clinton, whereas the links to general speeches/talks by Obama all covered a variety of issues. Whether it's media bias, candidate painting, or whatever reason, Clinton is obviously making the war a frontispiece in her campaign du jour. The agenda needs to be more broadly based.

As for the flag pin issue, this seems to have died away. Maybe FOX news still dusts it off for some time filler, but I haven't caught anything new on it except a link provided from 1gm that pointed to the fact that most of the candidates dropped the pin as daily acoutrement.

I have to say I agreed with everything Obama's pastor said, but without the black perspective

It doesn't surprise me that there are people so full of ignorance and hate to actually believe the moronic things this guy said. And it really doesn't surprise me that such a person would be a liberal.

But let me take a moment to thank you. You realize that being so completely idiotic, having such a ridiculous mindset, is actively insuring that the party with which you affiliate will forever be relegated to an ineffective status, right? Because most of this country isn't as crazy as you. Most people, if you tell them "we brought 9/11 on ourselves!" will quite happily pass-a-fist through your face. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of insanity this guy has been spewing.

At some point you have to ask yourself what you hope to gain. This guy is just spewing ignorance and hate against his own country, and you're there cheering him on. What do you hope to gain by lying about the decision to use nuclear bombs in WWII? What do you have to gain in pretending we 'brought 9/11 on ourselves'? What do you have to gain by pretending that black people have no ability to advance or succeed in this country?

Think it over. Because I can tell you what you have to lose: the presidency.

If the Democrats allow the war to be the primary agenda in the fall, they will lose.

That's a strange prediction, seeing as there is a vast majority in the population that are opposed to the war. I think there is a very different reason why the Iraq war is almost off the agenda in this election. And that is that Clinton/Obama don't plan to withdraw from Iraq. It's not in the empire's interest, and they know it. They may pull some troops for appearences, but US control over Iraq is there to stay.

Noam Chomsky wrote an article recently on why the war isn't talked about much in this campaign. It wasn't a very focused article, and he didn't really answer the question he raised, but he has done so previously and the analysis is a good one: In Vietnam the US could withdraw because its objectives were largely met: The country was destroyed and Communism would not have a bright future there. In Iraq the objective is quite different: It's about long-term control over the world's second large oil reserve and solidifying the military presence in the region. Clearly withdrawing and leaving control over the country to a sovereign , independent and probably Iran-friendly Iraqi government is out of the question.

There is a lot of blurring going on between what is said by the candidates' supporters and the candidates themselves and their staff.

I have certainly heard Ferraro accused of being a racist, but I haven't heard much about Hillary being a racist. Although I have seen her accused of cynically allowing racism to be used in her campaign for political advantage - an accusation which I hold to be true.

Hey Norm, I have one word for you: thanks. I actually forgot to stop by here yesterday and was wondering why the post had all those comments!

To get a link here means as much to me as it would on Huffington or DK, because this site is guided and read by deeply intelligent people who actually care about what happens to this poor benighted nation of ours. That's something I always try to keep in mind, even amid the most heated of debates.

If the Democrats allow the war to be the primary agenda in the fall, they will lose. (me) That's a strange prediction, seeing as there is a vast majority in the population that are opposed to the war. I think there is a very different reason why the Iraq war is almost off the agenda in this election. And that is that Clinton/Obama don't plan to withdraw from Iraq. It's not in the empire's interest, and they know it. They may pull some troops for appear[a]nces, but US control over Iraq is there to stay.(kz)

Kristian Z - you're actually hitting on what I've been talking about. Clinton goes around saying she's the best candidate to be ready on day one. Both Clinton and Obama say they'd like to get us out, but I agree with you, neither really plans to withdraw our troops from Iraq, at least not in the near future.

McCain has made his stance in Iraq clear - with him as president, the U.S. troops will be there a while for certain.

Yes, many in this country poll against the war, but 1) there are still numbers who can be manipulated by the fear card 2)McCain is the guy with all the combnat experience.

I will agree that if Obama or Clinton (and while I feel it's more likely to come from Obama, there's no proof in that pudding) used the was as a major issue in that there would be a speedy end starting Jan. 2009, they will have a chance. If they go the route of, weell we have to see when things are stable and make the war a major issue, McCain will win. Since the latter position on the war is the current position, the Democratic candidate had best raise issues that are strong for him/her and weak for McCain.

So let's see if the blockquote works.

I'm willing to take Hillary at her word that she doesn't agree with Ferraro's offensive comments, even if plenty of Hillary's supporters agree with them. So I think others should give the same benefit to Obama and not count "attempts to tar Hillary as a racist" as coming from Obama himself. Even Obama's unhinged pastor didn't accuse Hillary of racism, though, and I'm not sure who has.

I'm not quite sure what it means to call someone a racist. In America today it's unfortunately almost meaningless. But I am pretty comfortable calling Ferraro's comments and self-righteous indignation racist. Her comments were racist in the same way that "Hillary wouldn't have been a three term House member without a marriage of convenience" is sexist or "McCain is a guy who barely made it through the Naval academy and only has a political career because he was was shot down and tortured." is offensive in some general way. All three comments are extremely uncharitable to people of signficant accomplishment, and the comments about Obama and Hillary suggest, outrageously, that women and blacks can only succeed when they're given a boost by men and whites. These assumptions are at the core of racism and sexism.

"Can we please bring some sanity back to the blogosphere?"

The idea that the blogosphere was once sane is itself insane.

calligraph: "And it really doesn't surprise me that such a person would be a liberal."

It's strange that you can't refute even an obviously dumb claim without trying to tie it back to the moral depravity of liberals. In some sense I understand though--it innoculates you against having to consider even reasonable liberal arguments.

Dende Blogger,

Of any person anywhere on the blogosphere, it is your comments that I have the most respect for.

In the past, I have been overly critical of believers. However, I have met a lot of high-level believers in the past year and I understand that creating this divide is not productive. I also realize that there are plenty of dumb-shit atheists, just as there are plenty of intelligent believers.

What is most important is a person's beliefs vis-à-vis their fellow human beings and not their private beliefs as concerns belief in a supreme being.

Thank you Dende Blogger, for you comments. You are an adult and your comments are always measured and mature.

I suppose that I'm an idealist. I have this dream that all of us, Republicans, Democrats, leftists, rightists, gays, straights, women, blacks... whatever... will come together for peace. Is this possible? Yeah, I know... Kumbaya shit and hopeless... oh well...