I can't comment on the latter part of the story about her discussions with Democrats. My gut feel, just from my reading, is that Clinton supporters are angry at the situation, but not at the President.

But is it news that the Clintons want to change the tone? Uh, Hillary Clinton has now been saying this for four days in public.

As for it's potential efect on the election, well, there's a lot of voting still to be done. But given even the tone of discussion of this site, is it any wonder Clinton supporters analyze the situation this way? I mean, there is no insight -- zero, zilch, nada, bupkis -- in this report whatsoever.

As for endorsements, they tend to be one-day news events. The Washington establishment cares a great deal, but I don't think actual voters do.

By the way, Lowell, if Caroline Kennedy's endorsement is such a big deal, what about the endorsement of RFK, Jr.?

I mean, seriously, all those kids sacrificed more than I'll have to deal with, so I'm not denigrating any of them, but RFK, Jr. has a long public record of service to the environment and other progressive causes. He endorsed Hillary.

"Andrea Mitchell is an idiot?"  I'm supposed to read beyond that?  No thanks.

the huge endorsements by Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy.  

But whether that is, indeed, the case or not is utterly irrelevant. This is what just about everyone is saying, so you can choose not to believe it, but "wishing doesn't make it so."

If he were going to endorse a Democratic candidate, as he suggested he might back in September, the ideal moment would be a few days after the Kennedy blessing, so as not to steal any thunder, but enough days before Feb. 5 for maximum impact.

This coming Friday afternoon, Feb. 1, would be ideal for the weekend news cycle.

Gore Endorsement -- Potent but Not Foolproof
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Washington Post

Former vice president Al Gore's pronouncement that he is likely to endorse one of the Democratic candidates for president before the primary season is over has set off a slew of speculation about who his choice might be. ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

It's time for Al Gore to endorse Barack Obama for president.  

if Hillary goes on to win anyway on super Tuesday.

I think all crap aside, it seems like the Obamaites have convinced the Democratic Party establishment that a Clinton win would divide the party. Just reading the depth of feeling on this site, it is clear why they would reach that conslusion. To me, that is the meaning of Ted Kennedy's endorsement. Were Gore to follow endorsement, it would be for that reason.

But I think both Gore and Kennedy would have been smart to sit it out, let the candidates run their campaigns and let the voters decide based on that.

Time and again, we (Democrats) are our own worst enemies.

Perhaps Gore and Kennedy can't abide the possibility of another Republican in the White House and astute and practical politicians that they are -- over and above being straight up patriots -- understand that the most likely way for that to happen is if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.  

but, yes, I think that is what Ted Kennedy has concluded. I thought I made that clear.

I think it is premature to make that determination, and it's potentially a high risk strategy, because if Hillary wins despite the high profile opposition of a respected party figure like Kennedy, it can exacerbate the problem.

is that Hillary Clinton gets nominated and a) the Democrats manage to hand the White House to the GOP or b) actually wins and delivers strike two to the future of this country (strike one being the current loser-in-chief in case you couldn't guess).

the Democratic establishment is troubled that the Clintons are breaking the Democratic rules which all candidates agreed to observe.  And maybe that will soon be reflected in changes in superdelegate votes, regardless of the outcome on Super Tuesday.

Also, aznew, I don't think the significance of Bill Clinton, James Carville, etc. playing the race card has escaped the attention of the Democratic establishment, either.  There are some places Democrats just don't go, and the Clintons have repeatedly visited all of those places in the last two or three weeks.

Though, as I have been arguing, I think it is wrong to say the Clinton have played the race card in this election.  Bill and Hillary Clinton are not racists. they each have 30+ year careers that prove different.

And don't tell me that you're not calling them racists when you say they played the race card, because you are. The race card is a form of racism -- that is why it is so odious.

they're not racists.  They're shameless unethical opportunists.  That makes their actions even worse.

Ready To Go.  I am totally positive and thrilled with Barack as a candidate.  He has an awesome campaign.  However, the following must also be said:

It is our Party and our country.  The nomination of a major political party for President of the United States is not something a contrite husband hands off to his spouse.  Billy needs his binky (pacifier) in his mouth so he can avoid further eruptions......just as bad as the bimbo kind.  Billy is a very spoiled and bratty baby.

So it appears there's no chance of an endorsement until after Tuesday.

Andrea Mitchell is relaying the same thing that everyone in the media is hearing. Here's another idiot to add to the pile...

From the WashPost's Shailagh Murray:

Kennedy's decision came after weeks of mounting frustration with the Clintons over their campaign tactics, particularly those with racial overtones. Kennedy expressed those frustrations directly to the campaign but was reportedly infuriated when Bill Clinton yesterday compared Obama's South Carolina victory to Jesse Jackson winning the state's much smaller caucuses in 1984 and 1988.

link

And to be fair, I'll even point out that RFKs other kids, Kathleen and Kerry, have also endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

As for RFKs widow, Ethel?

It was on a November day in 2005, near the end of Barack Obama's first year in the Senate, when he was asked to deliver a keynote address at a ceremony commemorating the 80th birthday of Robert F. Kennedy.

The invitation was extended by Ethel Kennedy, who at the time referred to Mr. Obama as "our next president."

"I think he feels it. He feels it just like Bobby did," Mrs. Kennedy said that day, comparing her late husband's quest for social justice to Barack Obama's. "He has the passion in his heart. He's not selling you. It's just him."

link

I don't doubt that Ted Kennedy is pissed at Bill Clinton. I just don't care.

As for Bobby (one of my personal heroes), he was actually a politician more in the Hillary mold than the Obama mold, right down to becoming a Senator from New York even though he was not from there.

...a lot of Democrats deeply respect Caroline Kennedy and Ted Kennedy.  Also, Ted Kennedy is going to campaign for Obama all over the country, and that's a big deal.

As far as Hillary being like Bobby Kennedy, the Lloyd Bentsen slam of Dan Quayle comes to mind ("you're no Jack Kennedy").

rather that they were in the same mold -- opportunistic, ambitious, hated by their opponents for their effectiveness.

But in rhetorical style, RFK spoke to the future in a way that Hillary doesn't.

but I'll take Ethel's word over yours.

Barack Obama is going to work his ass off for the American people.  Thousands and  thousands and thousands of us are going to spend the balance of this year electing him President.

The Times They Are A Changing
by Bob Dylan...... everyone should know this.
(Get On or get out of the way.)

The roosters are coming home to roost because the Billary campaign is a disaster for the Democratic party (internal) and   external (come Nov against the Republicans).

But better than the Kennedy endorsements was the tidal wave turn out of democratic voters in South Carolina .... a crushing rejection of the old school politics played by the Clintons.

Personally I feel bad for Hillary because her stature has been diminished by her over the top husband who can't take hint (like Ted Kennedy yelling at him over the phone).

In every appearance Barrack Obama has made, every one I've seen and all the "behind the scenes" reporting I've read ... Obama has been a "CLASS ACT" and it's no small thing to be put in the PANTHEON of JFK or RFK!!

Have you read Caroline Kennedy's endorsement / NY Times OpED?? It's a freakin love letter from the one "Kennedy" who has GRACE of her mother.

The truth teller will be in Ted's campaign efforts. The guy can thunder and when he does I expect a lot of other people to GET ON BOARD.

How about you??

I will support the Democratic nominee for president, without a doubt.

For a variety of reasons, I think Hillary will be the better candidate and the better President, because I think in the end toughness and experience will serve both Democrats and the country better.

But I am by no means anti-Obama. I, too, am inspired and impressed by his rhetoric. But I think people are kidding themselves if they think this country is ready for the kind of group hug that Obama proposes. I have two words for you: Swift. Boat.

And, TMSKI, I say with a lot of sadness.

then, with all due respect, you have completely missed what Obama's all about -- where he comes from, who he is, what he's talking about, you name it.  This guy's tough -- he proved it in Illinois, he's proving it right now, and he'll prove it again in the White House starting next January 20.

"They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other."

-- Bill Clinton, quoted by CNN, on Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain.  

"As for endorsements, they tend to be one-day news events."

Yes, until now, they have been one-day events. I think Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama will be a watershed endorsement for 2 reasons.

1. Carolyn Kennedy is above the political fray and her recommendation will be trusted as sincere and not self serving, free of political influence. (Somewhat like Cindy Sheehan was trusted as a mother who lost her son and her rebuke of Bush marked a turning point in the sentiment against the war.)

2. I think that the mean spirited nature of Bill Clinton's campaign style in support of Hillary's candidacy has alarmed and dismayed voters.  An endorsement of Obama by Caroline Kennedy and then Ted Kennedy will reinforce and solidify what people are now feeling about President Clinton's rather arrogant behavior and Hillary's refusal to repudiate it.

That may in turn reinforce the building impression that the Clinton campaign represents an authoritarian, top down, we have all the answers politics vs what Obama is projecting - a hopeful, people powered, be all you can be, nobody has all the answers, grassroots politics.  
 

I certainly think the flurry of endorsements is hoping to have that effect.

I know that national media establishment gets all worked up over these endorsements, but I think they have a limited effect on actual voters.

That said, they do have an effect on the coverage of the campaign, which translates into media narratives, which translates into voter perceptions which translates into votes. Perhaps it sways undecideds.

I seriously doubt, however, that any Hillary supporter is going to change their vote  because Caroline Kennedy disagrees with them.

About 30% of the people in the Feb 5 states are undecided.  THAT'S who Obama is going for with these endorsements.  He knows he can't get Hillary's people to cross over.  But with an average of 30% undecided, if he can get most of those voters, he'll win every state.

Clinton holds a big lead in most of the big states, but you are right -- there are still many undecideds, and if they break in a big way for Obama, it could tip things.

The other interesting thing the Journal reported is that state polling has proved quite unreliable in the primaries, especially in tracking last minute moves. New Hampshire is the one talked about, but the polls actually missed South Carolina by a wider margin that they did in New Hampshire.

To me, it all adds up to this. Forgetting delegate counts, if Tuesday results in the perception of a huge Obama win, then Clinton will have to get out of the race. If Obama takes California, for example, I think it would be impossible for her to continue.

But if the race breaks along the lines of the current polling, then it is problematic for the Party. If that happens, then I actually think Virginia will turn into a very interesting, and possibly decisive, battle for these two candidates.

Real Clear Politics has a lot of polls up on the Feb 5th states.

Bad news: Obama is down in almost all of them (save Illinois and Georgia)

Good news:  All the polls show a lot of undecideds, and very little "solid support" (i.e. lots of people say they still may change their minds).  This is why heavy campaigning by big names could help Obama.

I believe.

n/t

Yeah, the two latest polls either straddle SC or end just prior to SC, but they're still not showing the kind of big moves in sentiment needed to turn it around.  If there should be anywhere that's fertile Obama country, one would think it would be California.  Keep your fingers crossed.

http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-...

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

obviously the Hispanic vote will be significant in California.

The New Yorker noted recently that the Hispanic vote was a firewall for Hillary, and that one element of Hillary's gaining that vote is tension between the Hispanic and African American communities.

I actually pay little attention to racial politics (believe it or not after some of the recent discussions here), and have no idea what the actual source of this tension is, but if someone was looking for an explanation of how a guy as smart as Bill Clinton might "mess up" so badly in South Carolina in playing the race card, this could be it.

To counter the Clinton 'firewall', the Kennedy endorsement carries weight, hypothetically, in the Hispanic-American community because, among other things, well, urrh, umm, the Kennedys are Catholic.

As an interesting historical footnote, though the poli sci textbooks say John Kennedy squeaked by Nixon to win the presidency with some key vote counting 'help' from Mayor Dailey's old-time Chicago machine, out in New Mexico, the story is that it was Sheriff Vigil's (?) infamously corrupt Rio Arriba County Democratic machine that should have gotten the credit.

that Hillary supporters will not change their votes.
However until recently I have been undecided myself and took another look at Senator Clinton when Wes Clark endorsed her. I wanted to believe that she could be the instrument of change that we need.
My concern has been which of these candidates would/could live up to their promises to stand up to the entrenched interests that have driven the political process down this wrong and terrible path we've been on. Runaway corporate power has been the driving force behind George W Bush and his policies. I just don't want that to continue under a less violent, more competent administration.
At this point I agree with Caroline Kennedy that Barack Obama is the candidate who gives us hope that we can choose a course that supports democratic principles.  
It will be interesting for me who Senator Feingold endorses. I have a lot of respect for his judgment and his courage.

"And don't tell me that you're not calling them racists when you say they played the race card, because you are. The race card is a form of racism -- that is why it is so odious."

Are you going to sit here and say that by calling Bill Clinton out on his BS comparison between Jesse Jackson and Obama you are automatically accusing him of racism?  Acknowledging that racism still exists and using for political benefit does not make you a racist.  Having prejudices against a person because of the color of their skin is.  The former is what the Clintons did.  Your claim is by far one of the most ridiculous and illogical things you have posted and you know it.  You tell me exactly what Bill Clinton was trying to do when he made that statement... On second thought, save me spin because I am not buying anything the Clintons or their supporters are saying about it.  

Come on aznew, I know you are way better than this.  As I said during the Allen-Webb race, you can tell me you are supporting a certain candidate because of the issues but do not sit there and try to insult a person's common sense by asserting that what is so obviously is true is not the case.  The Clintons DID play the race card and they DID try to use race as a wedge.  Are they racists? NO, but they are using those type of feelings as a political tool.  That is NOT and repeat NOT the same as accusing them of being racist and it doesn't make it so just because you say it.

"Acknowledging that racism still exists and using for political benefit does not make you a racist."

Acknowledging that racism exists does not make you a racist.

Using it for your political benefit does.

From where I stand, UVA08, folks are awful quick to toss nasty allegation at the Clintons, but when forced to stop and think about the real meaning behind their words, it is they who become illogical, and retreat to semantic ambiguity in order to justify their holding of two inconsistent thoughts at the same time.

And just to be clear, I am not denying that Bill Clinton has discussed race -- facts are facts. But I draw a distinction between his discussing of race and playing the so called race card.

He will say anything to win, even if it includes trying to label Barack Obama as the "black candidate."  If that's not "playing the race card," I don't know what is.  Straight out of the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove playbook. Nice.

And that's my point. Once one has to rely to Bill Clinton being a racist to support their argument, there are mounds of evidence to establish he is not. And if he is not a racist, then you should not infer some racist intent on his part.

I'm Socrates, and I approve this message.

in order from him to cynically use the race card.  This type of thing has been done by politicians since time immemorial, and certainly not just on race.

since it projects a particular intent upon him.

But, if you want to split hairs and make excuses...:)

The Clintons take their own worst traits, and accuse others of them, just like Karl Rove.

wrong..wrong ..wrong...were there not mounds of evidence to support a claim that IMUS was not a racist, an humanitarian for all races, huge contributor to charities, did it matter?? NO!! What matter is the guy made a blatent inappropriate use of his radio wave that ignited a firestorm of racial tension. Was he a racist before or after it hit the fan and the spin started? I wonder. Now was Clinton one before or after this campaign began? I wonder. See where I am going. We live in an era of instant info where one comment or dialogue can and will usurp an enitire career or legacy. That is what is indeed shameful. Do I believe Clinton is a racist? No. No more than Imus in my book. What they are are OPPORTUNISTS in their own right.

that Imus was a lout, a bigot -- I don't know what to call him. Also, I believe he had a fairly long history of making racially insensitive comments. And third, the comment that put him over the edge was aimed at young college women.

Here, there is an intent being alleged on Clinton's part that, any way you cut, that is racist. But people know they cannot win that argument, so they sidestep it.

I am only trying to get the people who have been slamming the Clinton's to take a look at their own arguments critically, to separate fact from spin,  and to understand what they are really saying.

just because you say it does not make it so.  If this is what you have to keep telling yourself to make sleep easier then go ahead.  I sometimes wonder who exactly you are trying to convince yourself or others.

to thank you over and over for injecting reason and logic into this "debate".  (I'm taking care of sick elderly folks and can only check in to RK occassionally.)  When I check in to look at what is going on, I look first to your comments.  Keep up the intelligent assessment of what is occuring and know that many out here feel as you so capably and deftly post.  

I take it?  See here: "Over-Billed: Clinton fatigue in the heart of the Democratic Party."

anymore because it gets you no where.  He/She knows what they are saying is completely ridiculous.  

but whatever.

I fully appreciate the depth of emotion on the part of you and other Obama Supporters/Hillary Haters. But simply believing something very deeply doesn't make it any more true. Facts matter.

A clear strategy of the Obama campaign has been to deflect unwelcome Clinton charges by branding them as race baiting. Thus, the questioning of Obama's record on the war was cynically turned, BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, into  a race-based attack when it was nothing of the kind.

Hillary's comment that the dream of MLK required, among other things, the legislative savvy of LBJ to become the law of the land was cynically turned, BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN,  into a bizzare allegation that African Americans need the help of white people to accomplish something, when it was nothing of the kind.

So, consider this uva08, before making the baseless assumption that you know what I think is ridiculous or not, that the Obama campaign is just a cynical as you claim the Clintons are in using race, but their propaganda has worked on you, so you can't see it.

The Obama path has been to brand this mess as "politics as usual" or "the status quo".

It was not the campaign or Obama, but regular people, especially those who had lived through the Civil Rights Era, who were appalled by HRC's LBJ/MLK comment.  

aznew, your assertion that Obama is "just as cynical" is embarassing, and precisely the Clinton campaign's most important spin, because if Americans actually come to believe that Obama is a true game changer, a true leader, capable of transforming this nation, then there will be no stopping him.

Get ready, because if SC is any indication, America is ready to believe.

Several reporters covering the South Carolina campaigns made the point that the spin was coming hot and heavy from both camps.

Obama wants it both ways. He plays the naif to Hillary Clinton's big bad witch, but then argues he is mean and tough enough to beat the Republicans in November.

Well, if both statements are true, isn't it fair to conclude that his campaign persona and narrative have been just as calculated as those of the Clintons'?  

this is why it is impossible to have a serious conversation with you.  You make up your own definitions of words and then try to throw all us in a category to better your argument.  If in the world of aznew, playing the race card is a form of racism then Bill Clinton engaged in a form of racism.  There you have it.

BTW... I never thought the "fairy tale" statement was using the race card nor did I think the MLK comment was racist.  The comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson IS playing the race card and for you to say otherwise is a flat out lie.

"Hillary's comment that the dream of MLK required, among other things, the legislative savvy of LBJ to become the law of the land was cynically turned, BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN,  into a bizzare allegation that African Americans need the help of white people to accomplish something, when it was nothing of the kind."

This was not spun by OBAMA as you claim.  Please show me a statement where he or a spokesperson made this assertion.

Here is what Obama said (via MSNBC):

"She made an unfortunate remark about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson. I haven't remarked on it. And she offended some folks who thought she diminished the role about King and the civil rights movement."

Here is Charlie Rangel on Obama's comments:

But Monday night, hours after both sides tried to lower the rhetoric, U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York, called Obama "absolutely stupid" for attacking Clinton for her comments about Lyndon Johnson and King.

"How race got into this thing is because Obama said 'race,' " said Rangel, a Clinton supporter and one of the highest-ranking African-Americans in Congress, in a TV interview on NY1.

"But there is nothing that Hillary Clinton has said that baffles me. I would challenge anybody to belittle the contribution that Dr. King has made to the world, to our country, to civil rights and the Voting Rights Act," Rangel said. "But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid. It's absolutely dumb to infer that Dr. King alone passed the legislation and signed it into law."

The Obama camp distributed a memo in South Carolina that listed all the instances in which the Clintons allegedly played the race card. Their list includes Hillary's LBJ/MLK comment as well as the "fairy tale" comment.

So, when Obama claims it is "ludicrous" for Hillary to suggest that the Obama campaign used her comments to criticize on her a racial basis, that is demonstrably false.

Here is one take on it from the Seattle P-I:

Obama's endorsement of the position that Clinton had somehow "dissed" King with her comments lessens his own appeal and plays into the hands of those who would turn this spirited race into a "them against us" slugfest based on something other than the major issues and who is best qualified to meet them.  ... In the heat of the current campaign, everyone would be better served by some caution. Without prudence, about all that will be accomplished will be to turn the process into a nasty exercise in polemics. If we are ever to get over the problems that have kept a black or a woman from the opportunity to run for the highest office of the land, then there has to be an example of civility. In this case, it was not Clinton who was insensitive or unfortunate in her remarks. It was those, including Obama, who chose to ignore their correctness and distort their intent that should have known better.

had absolutely nothing to do with race unless you want to assume that any discussion or King automatically includes race.  He said it was an "unfortunate" he didn't say racist or even insinuate race, the media did that.  The South Carolina is a little unsettling to me but it is made clear in the memo that the statements made by the Clintons COULD be PERCEIVED as playing the race card.  If I am not mistaken, the media was already bringing up these questions prior to the memo so clearly the memo was correct in that some people were perceiving those comments that way.  The Clinton people want to pretend like both sides are playing dirty when it is clear to practically everyone who has been digging in the mud pit more.

Rangel's statements about Obama are just as relevant to me as Bob Johnson's.  IOW they don't matter.  

Facts are stubborn things.

He said Hillary Clinton made a statement that diminished Martin Luther King, and you say he wasn't talking about race? First, she did not diminish MLK in her statement.

Second, now you say it is the media who injected race into the campaign. Well, who was it now -- the media or the Clintons?

Well, take a look at that memo distributed by the Obama campaign in South Carolina documenting alleged instances of the Clinton camp injecting race into the campaign. It includes the LBJ/MLK statement. Now, this memo, beyond a shadow of a doubt, sought to inject race into the campaign, and it came from the Obama camp (and n.b., this memo preceded the statements of Bill Clinton that sent some folks here over the edge.)

You ask for the statements. I provide them. One of our more astute politicians, Rangel, explains their significance, but you just say you don't care. You then compare Rangel to Bob Johnson and say what neither of them say matters.

And you say I am blind?

 

explains the Clinton's race-baiting better than I've seen anywhere.  White people should be offended.  Black people should be offended.  Lame excuses and hair-splitting should be set aside.  We have a right to expect better from a former President and his wife, and of any Democratic presidential candidate.  The Clintons don't get a pass on this one.

Btw, aznew, by my rough count, you are fast approaching your 100th comment defending Hillary Clinton.  I will therefore make a $100.00 donation to the Obama campaign.  Please slow down, or call in some reinforcements.  My mortgage is due next week.

Believe it or not, I'm not even a rabid Clinton supporter. My first candidate was Dodd, and if I thought he had a chance, I'd probably be behind Edwards. But I don't dislike Obama at all.

I am aggressively defending Hillary because I think she is getting a raw deal not just here, but at other progressive blogs.

I hope Super Tuesday lends some clarity to the race. I've got blisters on my fingers.

I do admire your tenacity.  There's one thing we agree on.

Billary marketing themselves as 'new', 'change' yada yada to the progressive and independent minded part of the electorate.

There is zilch 'new' about the Clintons.  

They manifest the tweedledum tweedledee aspects of our wheezing two party system.

Hillary Clinton is the supposedly 'new' and 'improved' product of the Clinton machine, aided and abetted by the level pullers in their debt among veteran Democratic Party apparatchniks.

Who asked her to run?  Was there some genuine groundswell from the progressive roots?  Or was there a Bush induced nostalgia for the good times of the Clinton years that the egomaniacal Clintons read as a groundswell that fit neatly into the plan they authored in 1998/99 for a Hillary Clinton presidency?  

They are the status quo and as deserving of a good brooming along with their counterparts, the incompetent ideologues currently occupying the White House.

 

Funny thing, Dodd was my first choice too!  I too am defending Senator Clinton because I won't stand by and let lies be represented as "truth", let words, thoughts, and motives be attributed to her that weren't said.  To attribute motives to someone else is a form of irrationality.  You can not know rationally what someone else's motives are.  You just can't know that.  

You're not alone.

While proclaiming yourself to be the voice of adult reasonableness, your recent posts here are filled with pejoratives and put downs.   Speaking of truth, gaining knowledge begins with knowing oneself.  You might start there before so enthusiastically passing judgment on those unwilling to toe the party line.

It's like we're doing something wrong supporting Obama and criticizing the can-do-no-wrong Clintons.  It's also amazing that pretty much EVERY SINGLE ANALYST is saying what we've been saying regarding the Clinton campaign.  Hell, even Clinton campaign people are being quoted off the record saying that Bill Clinton is damaging the campaign.  So are totally neutral observers.  Yet we're somehow wrong for saying the exact same things.  I really don't understand it; now, I see the line of attack is to diminish the importance of the Caroline and Ted Kennedy endorsements, which were enormous by any standard.  It's baffling.

I agree that innumerable analysts, etc. are saying what you and others are saying here.  But there are different opinions of what was said.  And I can't really go along with -- just because most say it -- that I too should see it that way.  

There have been several here who have the courage to continue to speak what we feel, and for my part, express frustration at the heated words that have been said about the Clintons (when I believe them to be otherwise).  

I want to post here but feel more and more like there cannot be a fair discussion of the candidates that includes Senator Clinton.  Obama is king here.  As I've said many times, I like him and know he'd be fine as a Democratic nominee.  It's just several of us would like to feel our two cents is worth something.    

Regarding your comment:

"Proclaiming yourself to be the voice adult reasonableness".  I don't believe I've stated that j wyatt. I've looked through my comments, and I'll be darned if I can find it.  But please do look into it. If you say I said it, I'm sure I did.  

"your recent posts here are filled with pejoratives and put downs".  I've apologized to Lowell and others when my words were interpreted  to be hurtful or negative.  I've not apologized to you personally so here I go.  I'm sorry for my recent posts that have been filled with pejoratives and putdowns of you.  

And thank you for the advice to get to know myself better.  I certainly am ignorant about myself and your recognizing this deficiency in me will help make me a better person.  Once I get that knowledge hopefully I can be more like you.    

Oh and BTW, can you find me the that post where I was "passing judgment on those unwilling to toe the party line"?  If you find it, just let me know, I'll take a look at it, and then after I've found myself (see above), I'll start practicing to never say those words again.

Regarding your comment: "Proclaiming yourself to be the voice adult reasonableness".  I don't believe I've stated that j wyatt. I've looked through my comments, and I'll be darned if I can find it.  But please do look into it. If you say I said it, I'm sure I did.  

=

"Dems" who blog like what you've described  seem, to me, to be doing it to get attention. I work as a volunteer in a 1st grade classroom and I see this behavior all the time from children who are just learning to socialize and learning that they will not get all their wishes granted, that they have to wait for their turn, and that screaming only makes others uncomfortable.  

The arrogance of someone who thinks that the RK community is waiting with baited breath for them to tell us that THEY will not be voting is something for a kindegarten teacher to handle.  Tell it to somebody else...no ones listening anymore.
by: Dianne @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:35:06 PM EST

Why not dial it down a few notches? Everyone on this thread is getting very heated -- nothing wrong with passion of couse, but I don't like to see members of this community tear each other down. It's unproductive and makes it harder to have good, deep, honest conversations.

Dianne is a long-time contributor here. I enjoy reading her perspective, much as I have enjoyed some of your posts. Tone can easily be misread on the internet because of differing writing styles, different inflections, different fonts, what have you. This all seems to have escalated rather unnecessarily.

[Hey, I'm an Obama backer! I must believe in kissy-kissy and making friends with the devil, right? :)]

Seriously, though, disengaging a while might be a good call. This ain't called the silly season for nothing.

I really appreciate your comment.  And I too enjoy reading your's.

to you for saying that and I am sorry that it offended you.  I can see how it would.  But the tone and words said here are discouraging to me and yes I'm quite frustrated.  As some one who likes Senator Clinton, it is really hard logging in here each day and reading all of the posts and diaries that attack her.  I realize it's an open forum but I would prefer it to be more respectful for the sake of the Democratic Party.  I've never criticized Obama to my rememberance on this site other than stating that I disagree with the hope and unity thing.  I would prefer a different approach to campaigning that was centered more on the specifics that he wants to do for Americans, as Edwards and Clinton do.  

Today I learned something about Senator Obama that has disturbed me..... When he lost the NV caucuses, he left there with out giving a speech and congratulating Senator Clinton.  Today, NPR and the local newspaper here in NC report that either Obama or his campaign commented that the Florida Democratic primary was a "meaningless exercise".  I think it is unfortunate that he or his campaign said that.  I would have liked it better if he had congratulated her on her victory.  I hope that I will read or learn that he actually did congratulate her.    

As you know, I agree.

But one thing is undeniable, and that is the depth of feeling both for Obama and against Hillary. As a long-time Democrat, I embrace the former and am depressed at the latter.

One good thing about Dodd is that I think his run, though he never gained any real traction among voters, gave him a level of support and attention in the Blogosphere that really helped him in his battle against telecom immunity in FISA.

...certainly speaking for myself, was very positive towards Hillary Clinton until the last few weeks.  Basically, it started when Barack Obama became a real threat to her nomination and her campaign turned super-nasty.  Then, it went beyond super-nasty, bringing race into the picture (and NO, I am NOT saying the Clintons are "racist," I'm saying they're cynically attempting to pigeonhole Barack Obama as the "black" candidate).  That's how I went from leaning Clinton, almost endorsing her, to strongly anti-Clinton, in just over a month.  What's amazing to me, honestly, is how anyone could still be defending her campaign at this point.

P.S. It's important to note that I WILL vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee.  It's also important to note that I was turned ON to Barack Obama more than I was turned OFF by the Clinton campaign.  But yes, it's a combination of the two.

"What's amazing to me, honestly, is how anyone could still be defending her campaign at this point."

Whether she wins or loses, eight days from now, millions of Democrats in 22 states, and American Samoa, will cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton.

So many blind Democrats. I guess we should expect a shitload of seeing-eye dogs in Denver this summer.

Also, Lowell, if you will recall, when I got into this scrape it was to understand how Democrats could say they wouldn't vote for Hillary were she to win the nomination. I had a vague feeling that this was typical media-driven Clinton distortion of the kind we lived through in the 1990s.  It was only as I started to read some of the responses, and did a little research, that I came to believe she was really getting a raw deal.

Now, I am not at all turned off to Barak Obama, although I think Hillary is the right person. But nor do I believe Obama and his campaign are quite as clean and innocent as some here suggest. That's okay by me -- this is politics. I try to be consistent in how I apply my standards.

And, I would add, except where I was wrongfully accused of distorting something, I have not attacked or said a bad word or questioned the validity in any way of anyone's support of Obama.

I am gonna try to lay off the comments on this topic though, because Spotter's earlier point is noted, and I am just repeating myself, although I hope to have a diary up about the dispute by tomorrow that I hope offers a new view on this.

Now I'm off to enjoy GWB. :)  

Who can reasonably argue that it's not?

To deny it is preposterous.

Bottom line on the Clintons:  they are lifelong, professional politicians.  When they were getting 99% of the black vote, they played the race card to their benefit.  When an actual black man began interfering with their plans to hijack what could be an epochal turn in America history for their personal benefit, they played the race card the other way.

Well stated.

it takes to challenge one's own convictions, Hitchens' diatribe is worth reading.

Even if only one tenth of this is on target, it's not pretty.

If we are to present ourselves as advocates of a better America, then we have to be brave enough to come clean -- about ourselves, about our own champions.

On balance, President Clinton is more good man than bad.  There is much about him that is worthy of admiration.  In his heart of hearts, he is an idealist, a child of the Sixties, a progressive and humanist, a liberal Democrat.  But he is a politician -- and a very successful one.  In the thirty years of his non-stop politicking since he was first elected Governor of Arkansas at age 32, on through this weekend's South Carolina Democratic primary, how many ethical compromises has he had to make, how many tactical political decisions has he taken that necessarily preclude moral absolutes, in order to win at the game of politics that he plays, as he recently said, as a "contact sport"?

This isn't really about his well known recklessness, his lack of personal discipline, per se.  Sexuality, and the foibles that often accompany it, are part of what it is to be human.  But there is a discordant thread that seems to run through both his personal and his professional life:  an off kilter moral compass, a black hole of an ego that can rationalize any behavior, no matter how untoward, and the ability to lie with apparent ease.  To compound these flaws, Bill Clinton believes his own press -- in a way, he has been consumed by it, blinded by his own headlights.  That must be why he fails to realize that what we see is not a pretty sight.

If he was once our hero, he is now a fallen champion.  

If he is smart, he's apparently not smart enough to understand that Barack Obama is the offspring of all that was once good about Bill Clinton.

Once idealists, he and Hillary have lost their way in a miasma of ego and ambition. And that is the real tragedy.

http://www.slate.com/id/2182938/

Fool Me Thrice
IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE THAT THE CLINTONS ARE PLAYING THE RACE CARD.
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate
Monday, Jan. 28, 2008

How can one equal Bill Clinton for thuggery and opportunism when it comes to the so-called "race card"? And where does one even start with the breathtaking nastiness of his own conduct, and that of his supporters, in the last week? Barack Obama carries South Carolina having made no sectarian appeal to any specific kind of voter, and the best Clinton can say is that this is no better than Jesse Jackson managed to do. Really? Did Jackson come south having already got himself elected the senator from Illinois? ...

of saying that the Clintons are racist because of their alleged campaign strategy. That is claiming to know what someone else's motives are... which I think is ridiculous and, as you say, irrational.

in any way, shape or form.  They simply want to win, and are willing to do things many Democrats find repugnant in order to do so.

I did not accuse anyone of saying that the Clintons were racist. Quite the opposite, no one here appears to be saying that.

I said it was implicit in the allegation that the Clinton's are playing the race card, whether folks are aware of it or not.

From there, I argue that if you don't believe the Clintons are racist, then you should probably reconsider the allegation that the Clintons are playing the race card, because that presumes a certain intention on their part, IMHO.

I understand that Obama supporters disagree with me on this. I just want to set the record straight on what I am saying.

I agree that the overwhelming majority of people on RK support Obama with the Edwards supporters bringing up the rear.  Some things said by Obama supporters are either unsupported, weak arguments, or just plain name calling.  And I have certainly not been a stranger to calling that out and critiquing Obama and to a much lesser extent Edwards.

I was willing to give the Clinton campaign the benefit of the doubt.  But the Jesse Jackson comment was indefensible.  The only thing that Senator Obama has in common with Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns is that he also happens to be black.  So, what meaning can be taken from this statement?  At a minimum, it was a cynical attempt by Bill Clinton to downplay the results of the South Carolina caused by his negative campaigning.  The comparison though stands out.  It is basically saying that well black people voted for the "black candidate."  That the Democratic electorate of South Carolina is so one dimensional that they can only see the color of the man's skin when they cast their ballot.  It is a double standard because rarely are white voters intentions challenged in the same manner.  And it demeans the intelligence and rational judgement of an entire group of people.  

I started to question the Clinton campaign after the Bob Johnson comment and the failure of the Clinton campaign to right that wrong.  I let that pass, but Bill Clinton's comment after Obama's win and before Senator Clinton's concession speech was the final straw.  If Republicans were pulling this crap, we would instantly call it race-baiting.  Bill Clinton's comment cements that for me.  They are clearly trying to divide Democratic primary voters along racial lines.  And that is beyond the pale for me.

I still like Senator Clinton.  But unless she repudiates the comment her husband made and apologizes for the conduct of her campaign in South Carolina (that she controls, where does the buck stop if not with her?), then I cannot vote for her in the primary.  You can go back and read my old comments, I was undecided between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton.  But right now, Senator Clinton has lost my vote.  And with only 15 days to make amends, I doubt she is getting it back.

to people like Dianne or aznew. This is not just coming from Obama supporters, a LOT of Clinton supporters are pissed at these actions as well.  

I've always like Obama, but was so impressed by the Clinton and Edwards campaigns for most of 2007, that I just couldn't seal the deal. After Obama won Iowa, things changed.

I know that it's impossible to believe that someone like me hasn't always hated the Clintons and everything they stand for, but it's true. In fact, if I had a nickel for every time I've been accused of being a Clinton apologist in the past...

For much of 2007, I was seen as very pro-Clinton, which I was.  That all changed after Iowa, big time.  Don't believe me?  Go back and look at my diaries on the presidential race during 2007...

I can't think of a Kennedy whom I'd rather have an endorsement from than RFK, Jr.!!!  Congratulations Senator Clinton.  

"....there is no insight -- zero, zilch, nada, bupkis -- in this report whatsoever."  ditto

You'd rather have RFK, Jr's endorsement than Caroline Kennedy's and Ted Kennedy's?  Well, alrighty then, we'll see how that works out...

against Andrea Mitchell?  I mean, I've heard multiple analysts saying the same exact things as Mitchell said in her analysis, including Mark Shields, Ruth Marcus, etc., etc. Are they ALL "average reporters" or whatever the insult du jour is?

of who she sounds like.  Maybe it's a personal preference.  In my mind, she really only gained real recognition after her marriage to Greenspan.  Sorry, it's just a personal feeling about her.  When I've heard her, I've just never said to myself...wow...  

You may be completely right in your opinion though.

I like and respect RFK, Jr. enormously for what he has done with his life.  He could have chosen an easier life but didn't.  It's a great endorsement.  Obama's endorsements are fine, too.  

But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Does RFK, Jr. have the kind of national network that Ted Kennedy has?  By all accounts, Ted Kennedy's political network is one of the tops in the country.  And does RFK, Jr. have the appeal of JFK's daughter Caroline to tens of millions of Americans?   As I said, I admire RFK, Jr., but it's beyond reaching to compare him -- in terms of political influence and power -- to Caroline and Ted Kennedy.  

Oh, by the way, nice little passive-aggressive swipe with your "Obama's endorsements are fine, too" comment. And you wonder why many people here take offense at your tone?

this is what's wrong here ... your comment "nice little passive-aggressive swipe with your "Obama's endorsements are fine, too". And you wonder why many people here take offense at your tone?"  

It was not intended to be anything but nice.  I give up.  You win.  I'll not post here anymore.  Good bye to all.

PS  The trouble here is that when folks here are trying to express themselves in a civil manner, we get given an answer like yours.  I've apologized for the last time.  

Dianne was an apt proxy for Senator Clinton.  

When Hillary cried, she won primaries.

As the"Borg Queen"  she gets creamed.

Look for  the crying to resume......

I believe the Clinton's have shown a side of themselves that many Democrats did not, or would not, believe was quite so bad. When the campaign started I liked Barack but didn't think he could cut it. Hillary seemed, experienced, smart and cool under fire.

Since that time I have seen Barack exhibit enormous character under fire and a command of the issues. Has he made mistakes? Sure, but nothing really major.

Since that time I have seen Hillary loose her cool, use reprehensible tactics; exhibit a startling level of arrogance and, most importantly, exhibit an inability to learn from her mistakes. Does this sound like any President you know?

We should not have to say thank you when people are honest but it seems that sometimes it is appropriate with certain people.

I think that sometime in the next ten days or so it is going to become clear that Barack is in the driver's seat for the nomination.  It is first because of Barack because he stepped up, put the organization together and is running a truly excellent first class campaign.  Secondly, it will be due to the abysmal conduct of the Clintons.  May they rest in peace.

Fired Up.  Ready To Go.

whther you believe endorsements matter or not the time is quickly approaching for the Party to to check the heartbeat of the base and its relatedness to the candidates and move forward and the chips fall where they may and unite or the only ones laughing will be the Newt Gingrich types who predicted this quasi implosion was going to happen last fall if the Clinton machine was forced to unleash on an opponent in the primaries over that of the General election. The strategy being employed certainly as it seems to me would have been well suited against a Republican in the General than a fellow Democrat. Democrats just do not go there and now that they have I hope it isn't the Republicans who will be the ones smiling in the end. Somebody right the ship please before independents start jumping ship.

Barack has come this far being true to himself and I think that the wave is building now.

Endorsements (by the way Kindler) such as Sebelius are significant because they are women and because Barack is building a strong, diverse coalition.  I think he is clearly committed to doing his best to unite the country.......that is to say, unite the people who are willing to be united.

To put things in perspective, Hillary has gotten some important endorsements in recent days -- the NY Times and PA Gov. Rendell most significantly.  Sebelius and Caroline Kennedy are not particularly more notable than those...

...but Ted Kennedy is in another category.  He is an elder statesman to the Democrats second to none, the last great link to the generation of JFK and RFK.  The timing and symbolism of this endorsement are both ideal for Obama.  

And the extent to which Teddy ties it to the recent ugly campaigning by the Clintons also threatens to wound them as well.

Like some others here, I had been undecided, even leaning Hillary at times, but have been so turned off by the shamelessness of the Clinton attack machine in recent days that I am now leaning Obama.  

I don't want to see a general election campaign focused on whether we can distort this or that word that John McCain once said.  We deserve a Democratic campaign that inspires us, that leads us to a better place.

This is a great new blog I was just pointed to:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield...

I read somewhere that Kennedy endorsement would only have serious impact if Teddy got out there and stumped for Obama.  Looks like that is exactly what he is going to do, and in a big way!

Also according to other posts on this blog, Kennedy was one of the folks who were encouraging Obama to get into the race in the first place.

Plus they say rumors about Gore's impending announcement are building.

I thought the Ted Kennedy endorsement occurred because of his great offense at Bill Clinton's behavior over the past week.

Or is this something that has been in the works for months?

 

has been friends with the Clintons for years and wasn't going to endorse, but was VERY impressed with Barack Obama.  Then, the Clinton campaign nastiness angered him greatly and pushed him to endorse Obama.  It's not that complicated, what's to be "confused" about?

before any of this race stuff got going.

This might be impossible. Bill Clinton is the Big Dog. Nobody is going to be able to make him shut up. Even his wife.