Ultimately, the blame lies with the American electorate -- too many of our fellow citizens are complacent, superficial and gullible.  No one wants to work hard, take up challenges, step out of the box, try something different.  It's much easier to blame someone else than take responsibility.

There's a very good chance that voters won't do the right thing.  They didn't in 2000 and, given another chance to right the ship in 2004, they didn't then either.

Nothing lasts forever, not even this great experiment called America.

Let me respectfully disagree, j_wyatt.

The young people who have campaigned for Obama have worked hard, taken up a huge challenge, stepped out of the box, and tried something different.

I have seen people who have never been too engaged in the system phone call for the first time in years. These are people who are shy, so phone banking is not easy for them.

These people, these voters, have stepped up to the challenge of their time.

Is the active netroots ready to do its part about Hillary's kamikaze strategy? I feel that we can do a lot more than just blogging about this. :)

I made the claim in 2005 that a new generation of Democrats was rising with Mark Warner & Kathleen Sebelius and then fully awakening with Jim Webb and the many Iraq veterans who opposed the war in 2004 but that the Clintons would try to destroy this new rising party. I must say that I was disappointed when Senator Clinton made the statement the other day which will echo in the Halls of the Absurd through the ages that she and McCain had crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold by their experience; he as a fighter pilot in Vietnam and she as First Lady. In itself, the statement is enough to gag a horse. Keith Olbermann asked listeners to take food out of their mouth before he reported it. But what was disheartening was that Joe Sestak of PA, one of the Fighting Dems that some of us worked hard to get elected, was standing right next to her. And these same absurd sentiments were echoed and advanced by Wesley Clark, who told the press that Hillary was more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than McCain citing her experience as First Lady and Senator because being a flight officer doesn't necessarily qualify one to be Commander-in-Chief. Those of us who were core supporters and volunteers for General Clark did not support him in 2004 because he was such great manager because he wasn't and his work has been criticized on the highest levels. We supported him because he had the balls and psychological veracity and strength to crawl off the battlefield and survive after he had been shot five times as we had seen death and bloodshed in Southeast Asia and as veterans of that conflict we considered that, indeed, it was those experiences which became talisman to a veteran's life thereafter and the bitter understanding and possibly compassion which came from those experiences could be touchstone to true and enduring leadership.

Olbermann called Hillary a "Lieberman Democrat." Clark, who fiercely opposed Lieberman on TV up here during his reelection, was an early qualifier for the "New Democrats" but is now the key apologist for the Clintons, calling her vote on Iraq a "vote for coercive diplomacy" rather than a vote for war when the country was in the grips of blood letting and revenge after 9/11 and 75% supported the invasion. As Frank Rich of the NYTs has said, her position on the war from the beginning to now has followed the market. As this deceptive thinking and language occurs one cannot help but think that as an Old School member of Bill Clinton's Carville Cartel, Clark's anti-war work in '03 - '04 was all along at the instruction of Bill Clinton running "good cop" Hillary and "bad cop" Wesley together just as Dick Morris had taught him to do in his earlier Presidential election.

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

The Clinton Illusion: How the Clintons Could Destroy the Democratic Party at Dec. 19, 2005
http://quigleyblog.blogspot.co...

The New Democrats, Sept. 4, 2006:
http://quigleyblog.blogspot.co...

 

The challenge to the Obama campaign is to stay on the High Road and show that it can and will continue to win. In his campaign he has to readjust his tactics. He needs to do more town hall meetings and less of the (heard it a million times) campaign rally speech.  Sound advice from Mark Shields and David Brooks (Jim Lehrer Newshour).

People still flock to his events (for good reason). His support from the Kennedy, Kerry, Kaine types needs to be ramped up (particularly in Pennsylvania) so that the rank and file types can clearly see the difference emerging in the Democratic Party (and politics as a whole) and have greater confidence in the "New Guy". Like ... gee he really isn't a Muslim in rag-head garb.

Other than that the Clinton campaign has behaved as expected. They'll drag desperate Democrats wherever they want to go. But this year should Hillary become the nominee ... the Democrats will lose and that would be a shame. She's down but not out .... but clearly she's down and that's not the position I would want to be in.

I hop the high road you refer leads at least at a shot at the White House but what is it in my gut that says that it will not. What is it about my gut that feels the low road the Clintons are winding will put them in front of voters again in the Fall. That has been what Obama has done so well at and that is cleansing the gut of most of us who have become disillusioned by the established insidership.
I wonder what it is about us as Americans that can tolerate a campaign that runs on "entitlement" like the Clintons. It goes counter to everything our forefathers fought against during the Revolution. We did not want it to matter who ones father was or from what family they came as a means of determining ones "position" in this world. We wanted a land of opportunity where all Americans reached levels based on individual work and efforts not the class system or some entitlement or birthright or even some connection through marriage.

So it begs the question why it is a campaign for the highest office of the land if not the world would campaign as if the candidate deserves or is entitled to be the nominee?

This article says it perfectly.  The Clintons are doing their best to destroy the comeback moment for the Democratic Party, because they'd rather do that then let someone else shine.

The Clintons are vicious people who perceive their own power as the ultimate good in the universe.  One year ago I didn't have any negative feelings about them, but it is now abundantly clear that their playbook calls for every dirty trick and low blow they can muster, while playing the victim.  Because the ends justify the means.

Hillary IS monster.  Nobody should have had to resign from Obama's campaign for stating the obvious.  And her people are just like her.  I have finally joined the many millions of people around this country who utterly detest the Clintons and never want to see them again.

Obama appears to be a great guy.  Very astute, polished and cerebral.  Unfortunately that is exactly the type of candidate that gets destroyed in a General Election against the pack of wolves that make up the modern Republican party.  When folks say Hillary is a bitch that doesn't upset me, it makes me proud and hopeful that THAT bitch will be our nominee.  We're not playing tidly winks here!  This is the most brutal and evil of all sports and Obama just doesn't have the constitution and killer instinct to even be on the same playing field.  They'll carry him off on a stretcher.  Hillary will stand and fight AND WIN.

from people who like to talk about politics but don't quite understand how things actually work.  They think it's about philosophy and the process and "memes," when actually party building really comes down to organization.  So let's review:

1. Obama raised $55 million last month--a campaign finance record.  New small donors are collectively giving obscene, unheard-of amounts of money to the campaign because Obama needs the money, as he is involved in a competitive primary, and in order to have a competitive primary, you have to have competition.  FACT: Hillary Clinton is good for Barack Obama's fundraising.

2. We're seeing record primary turnout in states that have never mattered in the primary process before--like right here in Virginia, for instance--primarily because for the first time in a great long while, we have a contested primary that's lasted past Iowa and New Hampshire and Super Tuesday.  Again, you can't have a contested primary without TWO candidates.  FACT: Hillary Clinton is helping to build the Democratic Party because whether folks vote for her or Obama, she gives people a reason to participate in a Democratic Primary that would have been over by now if she wasn't a strong competitor.

This competitive primary is the greatest opportunity we've had in decades to build a strong national party, and with all due respect to Mr. Sullivan, it would be moronic to hope that Clinton would have the decency to roll over and die.  Competition is making Obama's campaign financially-stronger and better organized.  I sure as hell hopes he wins but I still wake up every morning and thank God for Hillary Clinton.