@-@

A moment of clarity reminding me she’s not totally nuts.

This puts Senator Clinton in an impossible situation with people like me– two impossible situations, actually. First, as outraged as I an about mysogenistic attacks on her in the press, I’ve got no reason to think they won’t be worse in the general election. And second, if she tries negative campaigning, I get outraged since I’m more interested in one of them winning in November than in a particular one being nominated. (which is why I get outraged when he is critical of her, too). I don’t think that by the standards of an election she has been unduly negative, but any criticism of a Dem hurts our chances of beating Bush, and that I’d something I can’t have.

wordpress is the dingo that ate my baby!!!!

Sure, call out both campaigns. But one of these campaigns leads in delegates and has a clear path to being the nominee even if he never wins another primary outright. The other’s only chance of winning is to convince enough superdelegates that her opponent has been irreperable damaged for the general. So, yeah call them both out but understand that reinforcing righty attacks on a fellow democrat is the only hope one of these campaigns has.

What has really pissed me off is the people in the blog-sphere who I had previously viewed as progressive and reasonable. I can’t understand that in bleating, kvetching and whining about the slights of the “other” Democratic candidate and their supporters they don’t see they are doing exactly what the MSM & dittohead crowd is doing. Namely, perpetuating the right wing framing of the Democratic candidates by blathering bullshit in the guise of important policy positions. Both camps have these people on board.

I support Obama but I will happily vote for Hillary if she wins because the prospect of a 3rd bush43 term makes me physically ill. Well…really I can also say that because Hillary doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning at this point.

There’s only one group out there that I despise even more than anyone I mentioned so far. There’s only on bunch that deserves every bit of ire, spite and abuse and that’s the Nader people. What? Did you idiots sleep through what Ralph brought us in the 2000 and 2004 election? Jeez you are morons.

I’ll have to check the numbers, but Obama’s favorables/unfavorables haven’t really gone down…have they? Apparently, Clinton’s have nose dived amongst Democrats (still held in esteem but no where near what she was before this began). But, Obama is still pretty well liked even after Wright and bitter gate and all that bullshit. I don’t know if that will continue. And we can sure as hell expect the media/McCain man love to escalate to Obama’s detriment, but I’m not sure if it’s the case that Obama has been that severely hurt by the media as of yet.

However, the unfairness and complexity of the system is not what threatens to tear the party apart (though I honestly think that fears of the party being torn apart are greatly exaggerate). To the extent anything threatens to tear the party apart it’s intraparty wedge issue politics, trying to overturn the rules in the middle of the game, and putting forward arguments that the will of Democratic-primary voters and caucuses ought potentially to be disrespected (though to be fair, this last maneuver is exactly what the superdelegates were designed to do). And those are all strategies being pursued by one, and only one, campaign. I don’t think any of them will bear fruit, however, which is why I think the concerns voiced by Melissa about the Democrats’ weakening themselves in this campaign are largely misplaced.

The Democratic presidential candidates this year were never as strong as Democratic boosters suggested, and the Republicans’ situation was never quite as dire as many said. An honest assessment of how November looks today isn’t all that different from an honest assessment of how November looked six months ago: the Democrats ought to do very well, but nothing is a sure thing.

That said, Hillary’s a bigger disater than Barack. His record is questionable; hers is terrible.

No sexism required.

“but in the end the American people are smarter than they are given credit for by the media and, yes, by us”

Isn’t it pretty to think so. I would have agreed, however dutifully, until 2004. The fact that Chimpy got re-elected (what’s the opposite of “on the merits”? despite the demerits), Kerry aside, left/leaves me cynical.

That said, I can agree with D. Aristophanes, that it’s just too soon to evaluate and then despair. Whatever non-rational elements come into play when the public picks a Prez make it possible for everyone to forget all this current broohaha (“Broohaha? Ha ha ha…”) when the time comes and the World Series has just ended. For better or, yes, for worse, but still.

Now I’m going to Copy this for possible Pasting if WP pulls a fast one.

(Which it just did. Again.)

There’s always some damn nominee threatening to tear the party apart, isn’t there? Howard Dean, anyone?

Saying that the length of the nominating process is itself the problem is obfuscatory at best.

Owing to the pre-primary scramble for states to assert their au-thor-i-tah and establish a new pecking order, the length of the primary certainly has pointed out the problem with the Democratic nominating process, what with its differing standards for primary and/or caucus, its Byzantine ruleset for determining the number of nominees awarded per state, with its super-delegation, and with the incumbency within the DNC itself.

Potentially FOUR Supreme Court seats in the next term isn’t enough for you?

Also, fuck WordPress

I have your solution: simply post a planning thead for the Boston-area Sadly-thon using the helpful text I’ve provided, wait for me to get the event arranged, then attend to vent/get advice from all your fans!

Easy as pie!