it was equally absurd to portray Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that it took L.B.J.’s political skills to turn Martin Luther King’s vision into legislation as an example of politicizing race.

Perhaps it was absurd to declare her intent without her clarification but any direct meaning of her words had a racial component. The direct implication that MLK would not have made a good president was at the core of what was offensive about the remark.

the white working-class * Appalachian* voters he lost

The thinking of this column is firmly planted in the logic of 2 months ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/fox-pundit-wishes-for-oba_b_103500.html

"It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal..."

Yes it really makes me "bitter." The unfairness of it all...

Do you suppose it will last for two weeks too?

i don't quite understand why this event that drew criticism primarily from the media is somehow the fault of Obama supporters and not Clinton herself. She is the one that has stayed in and allowed her supporters to say sexism has stolen the nomination from her. That MI and FL are somehow Obama's fault.

Now she makes a moronic statement that can be interpreted some very nasty ways and its their fault for not biting their tongues and letting it slide.

Okay, there are two possibilities. One is that Hillary is intentionally saying patently idiotic things like the "hardworking white americans" thing or the "RFK in '68" thing, in which case she's a racist and/or the world's crassest opportunist". I doubt it. But the other possibility , that she is a walking billboard for foot-in-mouth disease, is also damning. Obama has not landed on her for these comments. His subordinates have called them 'unfortunate', and he himself said she probably didn't mean them, which is a hell of a lot more gracious on both counts than the week-long counteroffensive she launched after Obama's 'bitter' comments. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The 'sniper fire' thing was not 'misremembering', it was her weaving a completely false narrative and repeating it in prepared comments, and this equally asinine explanation of hers to explain the RFK comments that 'the Kennedy's have been on my mind' doesn't explain for a second why she used exactly this same sentence in March, long before Ted's diagnosis. Let's not even talk about the 3 A.M. phone call or using Bin Laden in a campaign commercial.

She is a liability in every meaningful sense of the word, and just imagine what the Republican filth machine would do with these missteps in a general election. Please stop defending Hillary. She needs to go away. Now.

i don't quite understand why this event that drew criticism primarily from the media is somehow the fault of Obama supporters and not Clinton herself.

Yup. Shocking isn't it...

The direct implication that MLK would not have made a good president was at the core of what was offensive about the remark.

Imagine if Obama had said: women needed the political skills of white men to get legislation through which protected their rights. When put that way, the implications of any such remark are obvious.

Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it.

She needs to do this without conditions. That is, she needs to do this regardless of whether she is picked for the VP spot. As for the claim that there is 'no reason to believe she doesn't mean it', the best reason I can see is that she seems to think primaries are not about picking a winner, but about bargaining. Her distortion of the FL and MI issue as somehow being like Zimbabwee is a case in point.

The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election?

The issue is not 'bragging rights'; it's legitimacy. And if Clinton did "win" the popular vote--through changing the rules she already agreed to--there is no way she'd drop out because then she would, to my mind, have a real argument for staying in the race.

But that is how it has been the entire race, every stupid thing hillary clinton has said or done is somehow a big conspiracy by obama supporters.

But I love that line, about clinton bowing out gracefully, wasnt the opportunity for that like 2 months ago when it was first clear she had lost, unless she pays off enough super delegates? I guess now we all realize that for her bowing out gracefully is just not crying on stage and calling the media sexist and obama mean.

Im not implying she should get out before its over,she has the right to stay in, but to act like she hasnt already had her to chance to get out while looking good, is amazing to me.

If you dont think the reason clinton has been winning a lot of these ass backwards states, is because a lot of people there would never vote for a black guy,then smell the coffee, and when some crazy nut might take this as a call action, its clear those remarks were boneheaded. I dont think she is intentionally calling for his death, but I think her racist supporters could easily take it that way. But I forgot, it's obama supporters fault she said it anyway.

Is there some point to your link Red?

Most are still missing the point, that Paul makes so well.

Here’s the point: the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose. He needs to do everything he can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Barack, and his supporters need to do everything they can to make sure that doesn't happen. Do your statements and links do anything toward that goal.

Norm,

I'm a long time reader and lurker. I haven't posted before, because, though I disagree with your Clinton support, I have enjoyed your website for years and didn't want to fan any flames. But your comment at 1:16 really sums up a point you have been making, and it is one I hope you would pause to think about.

Why is this all on Obama and his supporters? Don't you think that Clinton and her supporters also need to do everything they can do to make sure that Democrat's don't lose? This isn't a one way street. If you go to any of the more vitriolic Clinton blogs (not this one, of course) you will see some incredibly inflammatory bile that only Clinton, not Obama, can diffuse. Until Clinton gracefully admits she has lost and that we must all rally behind Obama, what else can we Obama supporters do other than ask her to bow out gracefully without references to Zimbabwe, Bush v Gore, the Kennedy assassination, and the general oppression of women in our patriarchal society?

We all know obama needs to win, and you have been posting links everyday trying to make obama look bad. So you dont seem to be doing your part.

Barack, and his supporters need to do everything they can to make sure that doesn't happen.

And what we keep saying is, whether we like it or not, the onus for a unified party does not fall on Barack alone, but on his competitor because the race has been so close and highly charged. Clinton has a lot of power, and she knows it.

To help you see how things stand from our perspective, imagine, as with the Johnson remark, that their positions were precisely reversed, that is, imagine that Clinton was leading in the popular vote, delegate count, states won, and super-delegate support, and so, by every measure, ought to be considered the presumptive nominee. Now imagine how needled you would be if Obama not only stayed in the race, but kept attack Clinton, kept suggesting that she didn't "really" win or that her win was illegitimate, that she couldn't as a woman be expected to win the support of men (rather than, as a black man, win the support of "hard worker, white hard working Americans"), and sent overtures to her demanding the VP spot. Would you be, I don't know, just a little annoyed? And just how silly would it look, in such a circumstance, for anyone to say: Clinton is responsible if Barack repeatedly suggest to his supporters that Clinton's success is illegitimate, based on mostly racism (rather than sexism), and compared her lead to a rigged election in Zimbabwee, and so on, and so on?

Clinton has a lot of power, and she knows it.

Girl power. It's powerful stuff, that girl power. And Hillary uses it to whip her base up into a swooning frenzy.

Which, as I recall from discussions waaaaay back in Janurary and February here, is a bad thing to do. Or at least it is when Barack Obama does it.

"I don't quite understand why this event that drew criticism primarily from the media is somehow the fault of Obama supporters..."

Much less Obama himself. The NY Times claims to be giving advice but what it's really arguing is that Obama has some moral debt to Clinton because of how some people intepreted her various gaffes. Sure, he's going to win, but he owes her something. Most generally, he owes it to her to admit--by offering her the VP spot, by reaching out in some undefined way--that she was actually right about him, and right about herself. But perhaps she wasn't.

The LBJ comment had a point to it, that was by no means uncontroversial. It wasn't overtly racial, and it wasn't interpreted as racial by Obama--both he and Hillary saw it as an argument about whether social movements and their leaders matter more than elected officials in bringing about social change.

But the comment was extremely obtuse, especially coming from a liberal. African-Americans were not graciously given their rights by morally good white elites. They fought for them and won them themselves. That's what offensive, indeed, racial, about minimizing or reducing the role of King and black organizers in civil rights legislation. The fact is that white politicians of either party didn't care a lick about black concerns until the latter became an electoral force in northern cities. And they were largely content to let the George Wallaces of the world call the shots in the South until the moral perversion of the segregationist position was laid bare by black protest. But Hillary wants to ignore all that because she's eager to argue that a parliamentarian beats an inspirational, strong leader and organizer. Of course in politics you have to play the hand you're dealt, but the way you play it matters.

Of course there is nothing that Obama could do, more than he has done already, to avoid the kind of problems that the NY Times claims that he has. He can't say any more clearly than he has the Hillary doesn't have to drop out until she wants to. He can't refuse to play the race card any more than he has already refused to do so. So this isn't at all about what Obama must or must not do to win. It's about preserving the victimhood of Hillary Clinton. That victimhood does not exist because of the way Obama has run his campaign. It exists simply because Obama is about to beat someone he had no right to beat, either because of his lack of experience, his ability to win it in the future, his race, his maleness, or his terrorist-loving lack of patriotism. He can't change any of those things. So if he really has a problem with Hillary voters it's not something that he should try to change in the way that the Times wants him to change it.

Can we not talk about issues rather than these "distractions" (to quote Obama)? I think we still should blame the media on all theses overblown stories, even if the campaigns are somewhat pushing them (ie racegate; bittergate; assasinationgate; pastorgate;), not blame the media cause they are biased, blame the media for not being journalists and reporting on all this crap.

Finally, i was reading some wapo online article today on the controversy and for some reason looked at the comment section, boy was there a lot of anti obama stuff.... very very racist (we whites need to stand together and vote for our own), stuff about him being antiwomen to a muslim, to direct death threats towards Obama. ( they were removed after several hours after I and some others reported the threats.). Lots of horrible, horrible anti-Hillary stuff too, doesn't make me proud, and obviously people are becoming crazy about this election.

Norm, I'll agree with you that many of the reactions among Obama supporters to Clinton's "gaffes" are OTT. However:

As others have pointed out, it's infuriating beyond belief that the Clinton campaign doesn't merely stay in the race, doesn't merely play hardball, but does it in a way that is insulting, both of our intelligence (MI & FL) and in other ways (the various "mis-statements"). Meanwhile, the campaign is actively encouraging their supporters not only to parrot those absurd talking points online, but also to essentially hold their votes hostage (if you don't believe me, read through the reports of the conference calls).

The Clinton campaign has said/done many things that, intentional or not, have created a bit of hard feelings (disingenuously whipped up or not). Even in their "apologies" they can't manage to address this and smooth things over properly. Meanwhile, any reaction against such statements/tactics becomes a cue for them to take on the mantle of victimhood. From my perspective, it starts to take on a parallel of abuse: "I didn't mean to hit you, hon, but you made me do it, now apologize."

I agree with you Norm that the onus is on Obama supporters to be good winners, and to stop the Clinton-bashing. However, it's not Clinton-bashing to be worried about the fallout from the now constant string of mistakes and downright offensive statements (spin the Zimbabwe comments, Norm, let's see ya). While Clinton supporters have every right to stand up for their candidate when she's being attacked unfairly, the onus is on them to be gracious losers and to try to understand how even in winning Obama supporters can be hurt and offended by the things coming out of the Clinton campaign and/or their supporters.

The way you see it, Norm, the only strategy left for Obama and/or his supporters is to simply ignore everything the Clinton camp and their supporters say, no matter how insipid or egregious, so as not to "upset" Clinton supporters.

Norm... lemme phrase the question to you this way...

How do you want Barack Obama to suck up to you-- and other Clinton voters-- to get you to remember that you are liberals and therefore not to vote for John McCain this Fall?

That sounds silly, but that really seems to Mr. Krugman-- no way impartial on this issue-- is saying.

Is there some point to your link Red?

My point is that Clinton has inadvertently started a discussion about Obama's assassination. A fact she has neither admitted nor taken responsibility.

Somehow, before she takes the time to apologize there are already calls for obama supporters to turn the other cheek.

What is becoming clear is that Clinton is the Candidate that will hold the real power to unite the party, as is the case with many losing candidates.

What is yet to be determined is when she will choose to do it and why she hasn't started already.

I think that both Obama and Clinton should be talking about this now, this division in the party, right now. Remind folks about the crazy stuff being said. Obama should say something about the keith Olberman piece that he went over the top, but then Hillary needs to stop this crap about democracy, she should just say that the committee will decide on Florida and Michigan.

Obama needs to say directly to his supporters that the have to stop saying the things that are being said as does Hillary.

I see death threats on the Washington post website. I mean it is great people are involved but this is crazy fan like behaviour, and although i agree with Norm, that Obama and his supporters need to be reaching out, the crazy fan stuff is increasing from the Hillary camp. I guess folks actually believe all this stuff.

I will be very happy when I can come back to this blog, which I do increasingly infrequently, and get nothing but good stuff about atheism and progressive politics. I long to agree with things here rather than feel angry and misunderstood. Back to the pro-Obama blogs and keep on keeping away from the pro-Clinton blogs. I can't wait for this to be over with.

We've been over and over this ground six ways till Sunday. When it comes right down to it, there may be no "healing the party". Clinton and Obama supporters may simply be facing a shearing-off point between two distinct philosophies.

In my view, incomplete though it necessarily is, Clinton supporters value her experience and fleshed-out policy proposals, as well as her tenacity in seeing them come about, and they don't appear to see her situation-ethics as an important issue, since this is the nature of politics.

Obama supporters, on the other hand, positively crave a candidate with solid, dependable principles, in the same way a man stranded in the desert craves water. They expect that his intelligence and ethics will impel him to make good judgments, including appointing advisors of the highest quality, which would compensate for the most part for his relative lack of Washington insider experience.

Both groups generally recognize that the current system is woefully corrupt. But while Clinton supporters pragmatically believe the best option at the moment is to work the loathsome system to everybody's maximum advantage, even though that means the greatest advantage will continue to go to the special interests that hold the government hostage, Obama supporters believe in finally fighting the disease directly, despite the inherent risks of doing so, because the consequences of failing to do so are far more severe.

I fall unequivocally in the latter category. This is no mere "feed versus starve" theory of defeating a common cold. We face nothing less than a system-wide malignancy that has been ravaging the integrity of our nation and driving it toward catastrophic failure. Even now, at this moment, we teeter, arms flailing, at a tipping point. And make no mistake about it: A fall is coming. Those of you who doubt this, I urge and beg you to pull your head out of whatever dark place you're accustomed to keeping it.

Our only choice is to dynamically absorb the impact, "roll with it", and take our lumps as best we can, or fall flat on our face like G W Bush off a Segway. Which way we go depends entirely upon our willingness to abandon our wishful thinking, face reality, and accept responsibility.

I believe that Obama has these qualifications...in spades.

By contrast, based on what I've seen of Clinton, I believe that her, shall we say, "moral flexibility" would make her more of an enabler of corruption than a champion of integrity and justice.

Personally, I'm tired of every pretense about "fixing the problems", "reaching across the aisle", and "healing the divides". The problems we face are not rooted in economics or in party affiliation, but in ethics, and there's been far too much talk about this, and very little in the way of strong, decisive, bold action. If the public doesn't wake up during THIS election, I think we had better just go ahead and crash the go-cart, so we have no choice but to get a new one. If it comes down to a contest between McCain & Clinton, as bad as it sounds I would prefer to see McCain win, because his presidency would be such an unmitigated disaster for most US citizens that they might finally be shocked and awed into enough awareness to trade in their tin-plated, self-righteous convictions of convenience for an actual, bona fide moral compass.

If it comes down to a contest between McCain & Clinton, as bad as it sounds I would prefer to see McCain win, because his presidency would be such an unmitigated disaster for most US citizens that they might finally be shocked and awed into enough awareness to trade in their tin-plated, self-righteous convictions of convenience for an actual, bona fide moral compass.

Yeah, in coming to resign myself to it ex post-facto, I initially had that theory about G.W. Bush's second term, that things would get so bad that the sheer intellectual bankruptcy and moral emptiness of contemporary American conservativism would be manifest to all but the blind. Yet here were, seriously contemplating a McCain victory, due to the fact that the democrats--in Joann's phrase--once again can't get their shit together.

k: your remarks from a comment the other day about "emotional attachment" are ringing in my ears like the somber peals of funeral bells. This is nuts: Obama is ranked 39th in seniority in the Senate, Clinton 36th; their voting records are almost indistinguishable: Barack has voted with the majority of his party 96.7% of the time, Clinton 97.2% of the time; their policy differences are evanescent, in spite of their respective attempts to exaggerate and politicize them. Although I think perspicio is on the mark about their vastly different styles of leadership, nonetheless, on experience, on policy, and on voting records, if we don't obsess over minor differences for the purposes of politics, they are not that different. And both sides are making threats, half threatening to sit the election out, and the other half of telling them saying good riddance? And death threats are being made on the WaPO--not some crazy fringe blog, the WaPO--comments page?

This is just getting way too out of hand.

I think part of the big difference between Clinton and Obama supporters is that Clinton supporters--I mean the rational ones like Norm, not the lunatics making death threats in the WaPo comments pages--believe her when she says she'll drop out if she's decisively lost and will 'campaign with all her heart' for Barack; and they are mystified that Obama supporters pressure her, in the face of this promise, to get out, or they criticize her. And her supporters wonder: why kick a girl when she's down and you already won? And I think Obama supporters--again the rational ones, not the lunies making threats--simply don't believe her promise, not for a minute, both because they think it comes with strings attached (like a VP offer), and because she has already effectively lost and continues to make potentially divisive remarks (re: MI & FL).

That is the best I can to do impartially sum up why we're talking past each other: Clinton supporters trust that she'll make a responsible judgment, whereas I think some Obama supporters are dubious because it looks to them like she keeps insisting like, somehow, she's owed something after months of suggesting that Barack is utterly unprepared to lead or is somehow a victim for losing.

Here is what mystifies me most of all. Barack has been very careful these days about Clinton: he doesn't mention her at all, or he praises her. So I don't see any particular issue about him. No, the argument I keep hearing is that it is his supporters that anger Clintonistas enough that they'll just sit it out or vote for McCain. How much sense does that make?

I have no idea why these remarks made news, any more than I know why Rev. Wright's comments were controversial.

You can actually find insight linked to over on the crooksandliars blog, as they've tried to be media critics and refrain from positions in the Obama v. Clinton war.

I'm too tired to repost the links here now, but do a little searching and you'll see how the media - not Clinton or Obama supporters -- make these minor verbal missteps into IEDs for the Democratic nominee.

More than that, you'll discover how the media uses these distractions to focus their 24hour news cycles on non-issues rather than discuss something like the GI Bill, Republicans in trouble for sex crimes, the rape of the constitution, the bankrupting of the Fed, etc.

Heck, for extra credit in media studies class, you could even chart how the Media employs these method and phonemes to trump up Fundamentalist Christianity and deplore unitraianism, Islam, and Secular Humanism in exactly the same way they deplore Democrats and progressives to trump up Republicans and Corporatists.

Then, you know, we might be able to actually talk about the struggle it is to live in America, about solutions that could really help everyone... and more!

As an Obama supporter who reads this blog, let me make this clear: I refuse to debate the merits of remarks that have absolutely no bearing on the actual decision at hand. A single remark should be all that is needed to do away with whatever impact this comment might have had on the readership of ogm -- the actual response of ogm has created an entirely new response, out of nothingness. To what end? We have no hypothesis forthcoming because this thesis has no merit.

We know these stories serve the corporate media in their love affair with McCain (they want to be his third wife, should his second ever lie dying from cancer or liver disease), but what purpose do they serve any progressive voter?

Can't we talk about something else?

Yo, E Rocks!, yes, we can talk about something else. May I suggest...elsewhere? 'Cos this thread is most certainly about the divisions among Obama & Clinton supporters.

I'm just sayin'.

Adam, you make some very good points. And I've thought it through again, and decided that you're right. It would probably be irresponsible to advocate for McCain if Obama didn't win the nomination.

Okay, here's the deal. When the moment of truth finally arrives, Obama has to be prepared to strike his opponent swiftly and with deadly precision, or else he might as well just throw in the towel now and hand the nomination to Clinton.

She will not quit. Nor should she.

Obama has to defeat Clinton decisively. He cannot afford to simply ride in on the wave of his popularity. That's what Bush did with his so-called "mandate", his "political capital". That will not do. Obama has to win by virtue of his commitment to his principles.

Up to now, Obama has talked an excellent game, and made some pretty smooth moves. He has showed innovation and dedication that has taken him from a far distant, marginal candidate all the way to the frontrunner slot. In short, he has shown that he has every ingredient required to win this contest but one: Ferocity.

At some point, you either fight for your principles, or you don't really have them.

Obama needs to seal the deal, and he needs to do it decisively, leaving no room for ambiguity. Otherwise, even if he wins the nomination, the specter of "what might have been" will dog him all the way to the general election. He needs to understand that although Clinton may not be his enemy, she is the warrior that stands between him and victory.

He can't afford to stand aloof and make nice forever. That wouldn't be effective, or even diplomatic. As a matter of fact, in a way it would be elitist and snobbish of him if he simply didn't deign to take her challenge seriously.

Obama needs to do her the honor of meeting her in the arena one more time, gloves off.

If he fails to do this, or does so and loses, and she wins the bid on this basis, and NOT on the basis of her fuzzy, goal-post-shifting logic, I would have to seriously consider casting my vote for Clinton.

One does have to confront one's adversaries eventually, after all.

Obama says: Let her run. McCain is the enemy.

Clinton says: Something stupid and divisive.

Obama supporters say: WTF Clinton, if you can't say things supportive, get out now.

Clinton supporters say: Stop telling her to get out.

The difference is that Clinton SUPPORTERS are telling Obama SUPPORTERS to play nice. Where as Obama SUPPORTERS are telling Clinton HERSELF to play nice. Get it yet?

Do you get the absurdity of trying to tell a mob to stop acting like a mob? Most Obama supporters know how absurd that is, that's why we're telling Hillary to clean up her act, not her supporters. We want to know what her motivations are for staying in the race. Why she is doing what she is doing.

The burden is on Hillary AND Obama to lead the party back to a unified whole. IT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED LEADERS BECAUSE MOBS DON'T USUALLY DO IT ALL ON THEIR OWN. Talk to me about how you think OBAMA is not doing what is needed to unify the party. Talk to me about what Hilliary is doing to unify the party. Talk to me about those things and you'll be getting somewhere. Please stop yelling at the mob.

Obama needs to do her the honor of meeting her in the arena one more time, gloves off.

Interesting point. I think you might be right.

Wow. What an outstanding set of comments.

I share the frustration of others here, but -- as a former Clinton supporter and current Obama supporter -- I simply don't know a way out of this. It's almost as if many Clinton supporters WANT Obama to lose in a vain hope that, after 4 years of McCain she'll win in 2012. This view (let's lose in 2008 and then win in 2012) is -- at least in part -- being put forth by many of her core supporters, and in the garden of discontent, many folks like these will vote Republican for the first time, and because they voted Republican out of fear or resentment, they'll be Republicans for a long, long time.

A couple of months ago, I posted this statement on another message board, only to see others praise the message and then ignore it.

We should keep in mind that there are two sizable groups of people who will do everything in their power to keep this conflict going. Those groups are the broadcast media (since conflict brings in ratings and makes money) and Republicans.

Okay, here's the deal. When the moment of truth finally arrives, Obama has to be prepared to strike his opponent swiftly and with deadly precision, or else he might as well just throw in the towel now and hand the nomination to Clinton.

Yeah, on a side note, Clinton is officially his opposition for the time being. Not by his choosing, but by hers. And despite spreading rumor of acknowledgments of their defeat they seem to be chasing the popular vote and taking offense when rational folks publicly put their defeat in the past tense.

Obama needs to do her the honor of meeting her in the arena one more time, gloves off.

She wouldn't accept such a meeting as it would be viewed by her supporters and the press as a concession.

Don't vote for Obama, Norm.

Vote for anyone else. Vote for Pat Paulson. The Man on the Moon. Whatever.

But don't come crying when we get four more years of another Republican asshole President.

Seriously. Your anti-Obama stance is bordering on the irrational. That's fine with me. Be pissed off and you and all the other Hillary supporters can abandon the party and vote elsewhere. But the blood will be on your hands, not Obama's.

I rather doubt that, RedSeven. In the same interview with the Argus Leader Editorial Board that all the RFK hubbub spawned from, she made these two statements:

[Obama] doesn't seem to want to debate me or even appear on the same stage with me, which I think is kind of strange since he's going to have to certainly do that in the fall, I would expect, if he is our nominee.

Honestly, I just believe that this is the most important job in the world, it's the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think it's an interesting juxtaposition where we find ourselves. I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa.

On a side note, I think the "trying to push me out since Iowa" argument is totally disingenuous and insulting even to the intelligence of "hard-working white people". That's what ALL of the candidates ALWAYS do to each other. It's an elimination process, honey. </snark>

Vote for anyone else. Vote for Pat Paulson. The Man on the Moon. Whatever.

But don't come crying when we get four more years of another Republican asshole President.

I'm not suggesting that anyone vote for anyone but the Democratic nominee. In fact I would encourage them to do so as I have dozens of times.

The only point I'm making is that the over-the-top attacks the Hillary haters engage in is driving SOME of her supporters away. So yes you're right play the I hate Hillary game if you must but don't come crying when we get four more years of another Republican asshole President.

"So yes you're right play the I hate Hillary game..."

Come again? Please cite credible evidence I have ever done that. Wow, you are becoming irrational to even say something like that to me. I have done nothing of the sort--in fact I have deliberately avoided engaging all the Obama vs Clinton debating in all your comments threads for MONTHS--and you're implying this makes me wonder about you.

All I am saying is that this was a brutal campaign season and I am sure both sides have "hurt" feelings for one reason or the other, but if Hillary supporters seriously want to abandon the party (or Obama at least) in the general election, fine, then they should do so.

Obama can reach out to the more zealous Hillary supporters all he wants, but it seems to me some have gone far over the edge and that is regrettable, but it certainly isn't all Obama's fault; I think many are just taking her losing very badly.

Have all Obama supporters acted badly? Of course not. Some have, obviously, but the magnitude of bad behavior was more or less the same on both sides, in my opinion. So one side crying foul to the other is disingenuous whining.

If the Democrat party loses anyone becuase of this brutal Democrat primary season, fine, but don't blame Obama. Blame the defectors for childish and irrational behavior.

If they want to vote against their self-interest or what is in the best interest of the nation just because their poor little feelings were hurt, I say to hell with them. I don't see the need to kiss their asses.

The only point I'm making is that the over-the-top attacks the Hillary haters engage in is driving SOME of her supporters away.

You are right and also wrong. Anti hillary statements will drive her supporters away but suggesting that Obama supporters hate Hillary because of sexism or Just some nasty Obama tendencies is what can make the divide more permanent.

Blaming "Obama the movement" for her every PR problem is the problem and something that seems to look more and more like a Clinton strategy.

People disliked Hillary before anyone knew who Obama was.

She has been demonized by the right and the left, for some bad reasons and some good.

Norm, you have been blogging for a while, have you seen some much anger and disent from democrats on different sides during a primary?

I continue think this is all about emotional attachment that voters are developing. I even heard some republican strategist on CNN last night, basically saying that McCain's stand on the veterans bill was a mistake, because voters do not make decisions intellectually , they make them emotionally. ie he might agree with McCains logic, but it was a mistake politically.

Realistically Perspicio(sp), your post starts out as an amazing well thought out summary of the situation, but then you consider voting for McCain if Clinton wins.

If you want fundamental change in politics, this can also occur with Hillary as the candidate, we as supporters just need to make it part of the agenda. Charles, wherever you are, you say Obama does not represent your values, that he is effete and elitist ( i have been reading your blog), I mean really, you; gay intellectual, community organizer, smart, concerned about africa and the poor? McCain represents your values? But you have some concerns about Obama, mainly I think you feel he is not trustworthy, well make sure that great people get in his cabinet and more importantly, congress, as the president cannot do things alone.

What worries me is people seem to be developing hatred to their imaginary opponents as if they think they actually know them. Hatred is a stupid and dangerous emotion, it is illogical and not based on intellectual reasoning. It also does not help win battles.

Norm said: "The only point I'm making is that the over-the-top attacks the Hillary haters engage in is driving SOME of her supporters away. So yes you're right play the I hate Hillary game if you must but don't come crying when we get four more years of another Republican asshole President."

I'm a long time reader of this blog, and always enjoy reading through the comments section. One of the reasons why I visit your blog is for the consistent critical thinking you and your visitors employ. Your linking to the FallacyFiles is one of the reasons I support your site - if more people visited your blog, I have no doubt our country (and the world, for that matter) would be smarter for it.

That being said, I really don't understand your thinking in this last post. You seem to be saying that it's Obama supporters who are to blame if a Democrat isn't elected in November. So, what burden do Hillary supporters share? Are they in no way responsible as well?

I agree that we need to unite the party, and that means making appeals to the other side. However, you're painting a picture that's one-sided, and that only exacerbates the problem rather than fixing it. Don't you see that?

Again, I agree - we all have a duty to make peace with each other. However, your argument is that it's the fault of Obama supporters, all the while, you're unable to see how your support (in being one-sided on this issue) has only fed this divide rather than helping to heal it.

I've always respected your critical thinking on all the issues, but somewhere along the way your partisanship has led your thinking astray. I only say this out of respect for all you have done with this blog, so, I hope my comments reach you.

k,

I just want to correct one point: I never considered voting for McCain. I cannot, and will not, compromise my principles in that way. What I actually had in mind was writing in a vote for Obama.

Also, note that Adam's response caused me to reconsider my view and evaluate the situation more thoroughly on another level. In short, my perspective is still evolving. (You know, the maturation process that religious ideologues call flip-flopping, since they don't believe in evolution.)

Getting beyond that misconception you had about me, I'd like to say that I emphatically share your concerns about people being guided by their emotional attachments, and especially hatred. However, I don't think that emotions have no place in this. They absolutely do play a critical role. They are the engines that drive us. They just shouldn't be our guides. So if that's what you mean by emotional attachment, I fully agree.

That brings me in mind of this selection from the Bhagavad-Gita, in which emotions are equated to desires:

Know the Great Self (atma) as the master sitting within the chariot, which is the Body (sarira). Know again the Understanding (buddhi) as the charioteer and the Mind (manas) as the reins.

The Senses, they say, are the horses; the objects of Sense, what they range over....

He who is ever of unrestrained Mind, devoid of true understanding, his Sense-Desires then become uncontrollable like the wild horses of a charioteer.

But he who is ever of controlled Mind, and has true Understanding, his Sense-Desires then are controllable like the good horses of a charioteer....

The Desires are superior to the Senses, the Mind is superior to the Desires, the Intuition (Understanding) is superior to the Mind, the Great Self is superior to the Intuition.

Katha Upanishad (I.3.3-6, 10)

Madness is rare in individuals--but in groups, parties, nations and ages it is the rule.

Nietzsche

Or better still restate the argument you believe I'm making an then make your argument.

I'm only suggesting that one of those reasons will be the fact that SOME Obama supporters are driving Hillary supporters away, and to that extent they have some responsibility.

Which is like saying the sky is blue.

Here is what people are hearing:

I'm only suggesting that one of those reasons will be the fact that a significant amount of Obama supporters are driving Hillary significant amount of supporters away, and to that extent they have significant responsibility.

The debate is around the significance (and remidee) of the rift that is turning some away from the eventual nominee, not the existence of it.

So how many people are being polled that say they will not vote for Obama because of the actions of Obama supporters? What are we talking about here, 1%?, 2%?, 15%? of Hillary Democrats? Is there even a point to be made? Or is it just the heat of the campaign and the nature of blog comments that give the impression it's more of an issue that it really is?

And what if it is a real issue? The solution still sits on the shoulders of Hillary and Obama more than their followers. Obama has been setting the tone with his actions, but maybe he needs a 'lay off Hillary and her supporters" statement to his followers. Hillary may need to gear down a bit and give some McCain meat to her followers so they can get their minds back on the overall goal.

Despite any recent comments to the contrary, we want this whole thing to come together. I have faith that we do.

Here is what people are hearing:

I'm only suggesting that one of those reasons will be the fact that a significant amount of Obama supporters are driving Hillary significant amount of supporters away, and to that extent they have significant responsibility.

What I am hearing (from Krugman and the Clinton campaign more then Norm) is that somehow Obama and his crazy supporters are somehow the villain in this campaign and in these recent events.

Lets talk a walk down memory lane to a little comment about bitterness...

Imagine if Hillary had made this remark in private, and an Obama supporter snuck in and taped it. Then Obama made the statement part of his stump speeches, ran negative commercials based on it. All off a badly chosen phrase.

I know its a long time ago, but you may remember that is exactly what Hillay did. Yet in this instance when his response was to say her statement was out of place and poorly chosen, somehow all his radical followers are going over the deep end.

They are haters, sexists and vengeful despots.

Its hypocritical spin bullshit. End of story.

When candidates say stupid things they should clarify, apologize and move on.

Hillary refuses and digs her own hole deeper and then tries to blame it all on Obama and the media.

Krugman is doing nothing more then vilifying our nominee because the awful things in comment sections of blogs. Its much more irresponsible then commenter #1,563 on Kos using the b-word.

Who gives a shit if Hillary is digging a hole or if you think Krugman is vilifying your nominee. You don't have any control over that and neither do I. The idea is to get a Democrat elected in the fall. Attacking Hillary, her supporters, Krugman, misses the point. It drives Hillary supporters to not vote or vote for McCain because they are unjustifiably pissed off. I suppose there is no reason to expect that Obama supporters are any brighter than Hillary supporters they continue to do things that make it less likely he'll be elected in the fall.

Oh her supporters are worse than his blah blah blah. Really who cares. Even if I agreed with every word you wrote it wouldn't make a nickel's worth of difference. The expected nominees supporters are working against the interests of their candidate.

Who gives a shit if Hillary is digging a hole or if you think Krugman is vilifying your nominee.

I do.

Look, I agree with you that Obama supporters should be throwing Olive branches at Hillary Clinton until she can start selling her own oil.

That said, real divisions in the party will only exist if Clinton supporters think Obama and his organization did something wrong to win the nomination.

That perception will be largely determined by the rhetoric of the Clinton team (lets not kid ourselves Krugman has been getting talking points from somebody).

There will always be some bloggers out there attacking everything, especially polarizing figures like the Clinton's. Even Elizabeth Edwards gets horrid things said about her in the comments sections.

The question is, whom will Clinton supporters Blame for it?

Krugman is passive aggressively pointing a finger.

"Please read more carefully. I was responding to another commenter who had obviously misunderstood what I had written previously. Believing I was saying that I wouldn't be voting for Obama or that I was suggesting that others not vote for him. Of course that's not accurate."

This is confusing to me, Norm. Haven't you stated at several points in the past something to the effect that, because you live in Utah, and it won't affect the outcome, you'll not be voting for Obama if he's the nominee, but for Nader, perhaps -- but that you will support the nominee on this blog?

in which she tried to make a case for her continuing campaign by pointing out that nomination fights have often gone on into the summer. As one of her illustrations, she mentioned that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.

It wasn’t the best example to use, but it’s absurd to suggest, as some Obama supporters immediately did, that Mrs. Clinton was making some kind of dark hint about Barack Obama’s future.

I am still confused what Robert Kennedy's assassination had to do with Hillary staying in the race.

Even Dee Dee Myers, a Hillary Clinton supporter, is confused

But "assassination" and "Bobby Kennedy" in the same sentence when discussing her reasons for staying in the race? That's a total head-scratcher.

And then to address this notion:

But then, it was equally absurd to portray Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that it took L.B.J.’s political skills to turn Martin Luther King’s vision into legislation as an example of politicizing race

Okay, but why make this assertion? What was the point? If it wasn't politicizing race, what was the point then?

There's a whole lotta healing that needs to take place.

Just as Olbermann is no longer reliable vis-à-vis being impartial, neither is Krugman.

The expected nominees supporters are working against the interests of their candidate.

This goes both ways. The HIllary supporters are working against the interests of their candidate. Let's say that Barack does not choose Hillary for vice president. Let's say that Barack loses to John. Where will Hillary's career in the future as a Democratic end up whithout the support of Blacks and "effete" liberals?

Most of the important points have been said, but as a matter of actual fact I don't think that people who are really withholding support because of what the Kos said will end up defying the unified, conciliatory voice of Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with their most prominent supporters. When HRC goes to the convention and supports Obama, then they will have to think up another excuse.

Supereme Court nominees? How about "more wars"? Health care? Taxes? There is no way that I'd be cynical enough to believe that large segements of Democratic voters care that little about liberal principles to let them vote for Clinton and then vote for McCain based on what Olbermann said. It defies all recent history of voting behavior. Unless it really is racism, in which case Obama can't do anything about that.

And once we're well into the general election, will we still say that when certain talking heads are clearly partial , fine? But when Democrats are not impartial as concerns fellow Democrats, or when Republicans are not impartial as concerns fellow Republicans, that's a problem? Why?

When Olbermann was being clearly partial towards Democrats in general, that was all fine and dandy. Now that he is partial towards one particular Democratic candidate, that's bad? why?

There is no way that I'd be cynical enough to believe that large segements of Democratic voters care that little about liberal principles to let them vote for Clinton and then vote for McCain based on what Olbermann said

I hope that what you say is correct. However, just take a look at the Republican half of this primary season. There are a fair number of Republicans who don't support McCain because of his views re Immigration reform and Global warming.

If nothing else, this election season demonstrates that people can't be easily placed in a box as concerns their views and opinions. And McCain is losing some evangelical support because of pastors Haggee and that other guy (forget his name)

It's going to be a very "interesting" general election.

And finally, it was Hillary's support for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution that worked most against her being nominated by Democrats. There might be some element of sexism working against her, just as there is some element of racism working against Obama.

pastors Haggee and that other guy (forget his name)

It's Rod Parsley. And McCain has totally been let off the hook in terms of the severity of this guy's inflammatory rhetoric.

I think it deserves 2 weeks of continuous airtime on all the major networks, a la Jeremiah Wright.

Just to, you know, level the playing field.

Perspicio,

Ah, Rod Parsley. Thanks.

Re: Haggee:

Mr. Lieberman, who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000 but was reelected to the Senate in 2006 as an independent, is both a close friend and political supporter of Mr. McCain. Asked Tuesday whether he still plans to speak at the event, his spokesman, Marshall Wittmann, declined comment, saying that Mr. Lieberman left for Asia in the early morning and could not be reached en route.

There are so many questional aspects as concerns McCain and his supporters, which makes me wonder why Dems are still attacking each other? --scratches head--

Anyway, in one of his recent speeches (in Florida I believe it was), Obama brought up Doris Kearn Goodwin's comment as pertains to Lincoln and how he brought his opponents into his cabinet. This was a sign that he is seriously considering Hillary as his VP. It is now up to her and her supporters to support this ticket. Governor Rendell seems to be optimistic about this.

If Hillary hadn't been so cynical or so gullible in October, 2002 and, instead of voting "Yes" to Bush's War Resolution, had voted "No" to this misguided, unnecessary, bloody, and preemptive War on Iraq, she would've cruised to the Democratic nomination in 2008.

But, no, she had to prove that she was not "soft on terrorism" -- only that she was "soft" in the head. Remember, it was well known by then that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (15 out of the 19 terrorist hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, none were from Iraq). She "caved" to the "politics of fear" then and, since then, she has refused to apologize to either the American or the Iraqi people for her vote supporting the Bush regime.

She "lost" the Presidency because she lacks honesty and integrity. Pure and simple as that.

There might be some element of sexism working against her, just as there is some element of racism working against Obama.

Clinton's strongest support comes from the Appalachian mountains. Is that because:

A. Those are the least sexist areas of the country.

B. Their keen understanding of Health care policy

C. Racism

A. Those are the least sexist areas of the country. B. Their keen understanding of Health care policy C. Racism

Those are the only possible reasons you can think of? This country is so screwed.

Those are the only possible reasons you can think of? This country is so screwed.

Red is indicative of the whole country? That notion is obtuse.

Not to mention it was obviously a snarky comment by Red...

Those are the only possible reasons you can think of? This country is so screwed.

I was trying to point out that the argument that sexism is somehow a bigger factor they racism is BS.

There are certainly a number of more complicated factors including the fact that Appalachia is bookended by NY and AK. But yes, I do think it is clear that a large portion of the Appalachian states voted based on race.

Polls showed that. Snark or no Snark.

Red is indicative of the whole country?

never been accused of that before.