Man, could you be more in the tank??
;-)

"Ezra Klein will send his entire body of work about health insurance and health care down the toilet to support a candidate who didn't bother to address this topic at first and now offers warmed over do-nothing measures."

Ain't it the truth.

It's funny how obsessed you Obama fanboys are with how Hillary can't possibly win. If you're so sure about it, why are you constantly talking about it? Need reassurance?

I sure hope she pulls this out, because otherwise we lose to McCain in November.

Sexist swine! But seriously, it's hard to look at it any other way at this point. I have been saying since, well, DAY ONE, that I would happily support whichever Dem wins. Regarding the highly unlikely prospect of a Clinton victory, I have long since deleted the "happily." If she keeps co-opting GOP talking points, I may have to even delete "support."

Well, somebody's "bitter". That's very plain to see. Republicans always seem to attack others on what they are themselves

Well, polls are pretty clear at this point: This isn't going to do it for Hillary. I told you all it wouldn't, just as Wright didn't, and purgegate didn't, and payolla gate didn't, and Rezko didn't.

You all have to come to grips with this simple fact: Obama will be the nominee.

I do love how Hillary supporters think Hillary is entitled to the the support of every last blogger. They harp about TPM. They harp about DailyKos. They harp about 90% of the blogosphere.

Then they go back and hide in their nutjob asylums like MyDD, TalkLeft, Corrente and the rest. It's fucking pathetic AND hypocritical.

Or maybe she knows shes not going to get the nomination but is trying to lessen his chances in the general as to position herself to run against McCain in 2012, damage to the party and the country by a McCain presidency notwithstanding.

I don't see any other way to interpret her actions at this point.

There is only one reason to do this -- HRC is trying to set up her race against McCain for 2012. I would say she could care less what happens in November, but clearly that's not true because she wants Obama to lose so she has another chance to run.

Dangerous? As dangerous as say a bomb going off or as dangerous as a hangnail getting an infection? I really don't know why people are scared of their candidate not getting the nomination when we're still voting. Buck up, little campers, one day your choice will win and you'll realize that your candidate is not the end all be all of presidents once they get in office and disappoint you just like every other politician. Something that I've gotten used to since Obama became my senator.

The issue is not whether 'my' candidate get's the nomination (and whether or not I will be dissapointed), the issue is preventing McCain from becoming president and why a candidate with virtually no chance to win is so eagerly working against that goal.

I agree with the criticism, but I wish you had also criticized Obama for sabotaging revotes in Michigan & Florida, which is as bad as anything Hillary has done.

But if you think that her strategy for winning the nomination should, in theory, be balanced by her concern for the chances of the likely Democratic nominee in November, then this stuff could prove dangerous.

That's worse than shameful and worse than dishonest; it's stupid and self-defeating.

BIll Richardson quoted HRC as saying that if Obama gets the nom and loses to McCain, she'll be blamed. And I think that's true. I think the Clintons are pretty much finished as a national brand, but they obviously see this as their last shot, and they're willing to burn the village in order to save it. Or at least their neighborhood.
It's wrong in every sense, but it isn't the first time we've seen smart people do something stupid in a misguided political calculation. See HRC on the AUMF.

so what about the logic that maybe it's actually good for these attacks on obama to get out early rather than, say, in august? i mean, either he withstands them or he does not. if he does not, then he probably shouldn't be the nominee. if he does withstand them, then by the time they are recycled by mccain in the general, people will have already processed the information and think, "i'm over that." with both the wright business and the "bitter" stuff, it seems like the acts of revelation are more damaging than the facts of the cases. what's damaging is that days before a primary, obama's opponents get a chance to run new ads and pile on. but by august, though the facts will remain the same, the opportunity for "gotcha" revelations will be lessened because this stuff will have been out there for months. if bill kristol is gonna call obama a marxist, isn't it better that it happens now? when that line is still out there by fall, people will have developed more contempt for the speaker than for the spoken about. or maybe that's my audacious hope.

There is a difference in being called an out-of-touch elitist by McCain and being called one by your democratic rival with a large block of working class democratic support. She is basically telling her supporters they'd be better off voting for McCain, at least he likes guns!

I was reluctant to believe the theory that DP and Tom Hilton advance above for quite a while.

But the continuing ferocity of her attacks, in conjunction with their weakness in the polls, is starting to convince me. I can understand going all out for one last knockout punch if you're hoping to turn the polls around. I wouldn't like it, but I can understand it.

But at this point we've endured weeks of non-stop attacks, with very little change in the numbers, with Obama actually GAINING support nationally. We haven't seen any large pro-Clinton move on superdelegates either. So it's not really helping her strategy. Absent that, what's the instrumental purpose for all of this? 2012 is the only thing I can think of.

Bobby: I don't buy the 2012 argument. Hillary doesn't have a shot if Obama loses, she will recieve too large a portion of the blame. It'll likely kill any shot she has at any future advances too.

Julene, Nobody is scared Obama won't get the nomination. We know he will. We're scared that Clinton is so childish and short-sighted that she'll burn Obama and herself to the ground because she didn't get what she wanted.

Winer: Thats making lemonaid outof lemons. There's still something disturbing about Clinton, always claiming to be a loyal Democrat and then using terms likle 'latte-sipping' and 'elitist'. It feeds into the image that they never really belonged in our party in the first place.

"Ezra Klein will send his entire body of work about health insurance and health care down the toilet to support a candidate who didn't bother to address this topic at first and now offers warmed over do-nothing measures."

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that, once Obama's in office, this mandate/no mandate charade will vanish from sight, and he'll negotiate with Congress on the best congressional plan out there. This will make it much more likely that decent legislation gets passed than Queen Hillary dictating what she will sign from on high.

Its kinda like the harry and Louise ads on health care the Obama campaign ran. I did not like them then, and I dont like what hillary is doing now.

But it might be a bit humbling for the Obama folks to get a taste of their own medicine. Although I am sure they wont see it as such

You hit it right on the money, brewmn.

President Obama: "Here's my healthcare plan."
Congress: "No sir, we don't like it."
President Obama: "OK, let's hammer out something that will work for all of us."

President Hillary: "Here's my healthcare plan."
Congress: "No sir, we don't like it."
President Hillary: "Take it or leave it."
Congress: "We left it."
President Hillary: "Oh bother." *buries plan, never to be seen again during presidency*

I agree with Betty Cracker in my feelings about both candidates. back in January I was very comfortable supporting both candidates, but - with every passing week - it has become harder and harder for me to think that I could support Clinton in a general election. It's not so much the hard-ball tactics, but more how both Clintons hand out props to McCain, thereby legitimatizing him without him having to lift a finger. Still, on the slim chance that she does claw her way into the general election, I will vote for her... after I've downed five shots to stiffen my resolve.

Soullite:

While Clinton will likely get some blame should Obama lose (and a lot of the would depend on her actions between now and then) I don't think it will kill any future shot, and certainly not in her mind.

She will still be a sitting celebrity Senator with a formidable organization and fund-raising apparatus, plus A few more $50M years for Bill. If Obama were to lose she would immediately become the frontrunner for the 2012 Dem nomination, regardless of what the party thinks. She is already basically saying f*** you to the party, why would 2012 be any different?

If Obama loses, I can't imagine her gaining enough support in 2012 (or ever) to obtain the nomination. She'll be just as over-the-hill as McCain (age wise) and have the activist part of the Dem. party hating her just as much as the wingnut right in the GOP does today.

There are wayward Dems, of lots of flavors, but only two, IMO, Hillary and Joe Lieberliar, who should be run out the the party.

I have never boo'ed a candidate or major figure in the Dem. party, but I'd break that record in a heartbeat if I ever get close enough for her (and him) to hear.

DP, She's reportedly told Bill Richardson that she realizes that if Obams is nominated and loses, she will receive the lions share of the blame. She's desperate, but she's not completely deluded.

She'll have the DLC behind her, and some second wave feminists, but beyond that she won't have much of a coalition. Very few people are likely to forgive her for a McCain Presidency.

NOT NS, I don't mean to advance the 2012 theory--I don't really buy it myself. I think it's more like doubling down when you're losing at cards. The Clinton campaign probably figures they'll be able to turn things around in the general, if they can just make this longshot pay off and get the nomination.

I think the other factor here is the absolute (and self-serving) conviction that Obama is doomed in the general, and only Clinton can save the party from defeat. Which, of course, justifies everything.

"And yes, yes, I'm just writing this because I'm a misogynist who hates Hillary"

No. You're just a cowardly twit who becomes periodically obsessed with shutting down the nomination race when your guy shows weakness.

Hit Clinton harder, Ezra. Maybe General Electric will put you back on TV.

And it's nice to know that at the end of the day, universal healthcare matters less to you than your personal ambitions.

It's forgivable, as long as she gives a ringing endorsement speech when it's all over and does all she can to turn her supporters into Obama backers.

It's forgivable, as long as she gives a ringing endorsement speech when it's all over and does all she can to turn her supporters into Obama backers.

The words "Ted Kennedy" and "1980" keep ringing in my ear, but I try not to hear them.

If I read one more comment from a Democrat from either side who says "I won't be able to vote for Hillary/Barack if she/he gets the nom" I'm going to puke. Do you fuckers not remember Ralph Nader? You can take the blame for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the 100 year war in Iraq, and the continuing economic disasters.

And it's nice to know that at the end of the day, universal healthcare matters less to you than your personal ambitions.

Posted by: Petey

How does Hillary Clinton losing the White House to John McCain advance UHC, exactly?

You know Petey, I recall that after Edwards dropped out, both Ezra and Matt Yglesias singled you out as a passionate Edwards supporter, praised you, and praised your candidate. They had plenty of kind words for you.

Yet now I see you popping up in threads sliming them with all sorts of insults and insinuations about their motives.

That's some chutzpah you got there, pal.

I do hope that when President Obama's health care plan passes, you can finally afford the mental health counseling and low blood pressure medication you are so obviously lacking.

Has anyone actually said that here, Gus? I mean, besides Petey, who has said he'll vote for motherfucking Nader over Obama?

DP, while I'm sure Bill will continue raking in millions, I suspect it won't be nearly as many millions as it was when he was married to the woman who was about to be president, something that greatly increased the possible return on investing in him.

Considering the 180 Petey pulled on Clinton after Edwards dropped out, I wouldn't bet against his doing the same for Obama when Clinton drops out. Petey's fanaticism doesn't require consistency.

On the other hand, I wouldn't bet that it will happen, either.

Are we still wasting time on Petey-troll? He was a babbling fool for Edwards, and is now a babbling fool for Hillary. Doubtless he will bless Nader with some warmed-over trollicity at some point. What a sad, self-serving little wretch. However, the good news is that he always picks the sinking ship for his get-away vehicle. Clinton is more clearly doomed by Petey-troll's support than by anything else.

soullite: Nice equating Hillary's actions to a child's tantrums, that's exactly the sort of discourse that you feel can destroy Obama. Touche.

How can Hillary "destroy" Obama? I keep hearing this term used, but not exactly what it means. Unless by "destroy" you mean "not get to be president" because people VOTED for someone else.

Obama is getting exactly what he deserves. He has run a campaign based on portraying the Clinton's as racists who will do anything to win. That was bad for the party. If he hadn't done those things then the ngative stuff being at thrown at him would move people to his defense, even if they weren't with him to begin with. But that is not going to happen. He has this coming, and if the party goes down with him, he has no one to blame but himself. Fairness and respect, which Obama has not practiced, are what we all should be loyal first and foremost to. Obama is a parasite who has run a dispicable campaign, and the Democratic party is not so desperate that half of us should be asked to fall on our swords to save that scumbag from his own deceptions, lies, and arroragance.

"And yes, yes, I'm just writing this because I'm a misogynist who hates Hillary and loves Obama"

Yes, yes, you are. Repeat after me: it's a primary race that is not over yet.

Where's your post on what Obama has attempted to do to Clinton in the UNLIKELY event that she IS the nominee?

I'd like the rationale why Obama is the presumptive nominee??

It appears to be based on the unfounded conceopt that the remaining super delegates will only give their votes to the candidate with the most pledged delegates; BUTT, that is not what the superdelegates have done so far.

Isn't it just as bad for Obama to belittle her as a Annie Oakley character...

-----

And a shout out to all those bitter Catholics out there having to suffer through a Pope visit they simply can't afford. Just stay home and hate other races for keeping you down...Peace!

"There's still something disturbing about Clinton, always claiming to be a loyal Democrat and then using terms likle 'latte-sipping' and 'elitist'. It feeds into the image that they never really belonged in our party in the first place."

As opposed to say, praising Reagan and Repubs, hedging on a woman's right to choose, headlining homophobic used-to-be gays, suggesting repubs for cabinet posts, "fixing" social security,...
yeah, o.k.

p.s. Anon (6:02) was also me; sorry

He has run a campaign based on portraying the Clinton's as racists who will do anything to win.

As opposed to pulled out of your ass.

But if you think that her strategy for winning the nomination should, in theory, be balanced by her concern for the chances of the likely Democratic nominee in November,

One thing that hacks have trouble grasping is that not everyone thinks "a Democratic president" is preferable to "a competent president". Clinton's supporters may actively want her to gut Obama badly. I still hadn't made up my mind between Clinton and McCain, but I'm actively anti-Obama, who I don't want within a thousand miles of the presidency. I don't think he has a chance of winning, but I'd much rather he not even have that much.

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton is not only justified in keeping the campaign going, but she's doing the country a favor by reducing his already dismal chances to nil. I don't want anything going wrong with his eventual loss, should he be the nominee. Not only should Clinton continue to active fighting for it, she should do her best to be sure that Obama is metaphorically gutted, run through with a spit, tied up with his long intestines, and left to putrefy and decompose while John McCain walks calmly by on his way to the presidency, wrinkling his nose at the odor.

Liberal, or "progressive" hacks, have a problem with ideological lockjaw. They forget that lots of Democratic voters loathe liberals far, far more than they loathe conservatives, much less McCain.

Clinton knows this. I suspect superdelegates do as well. It's not easy to mull their choices, because without question, upsetting blacks is a tough call, too.

Hacks have trouble realizing it's a tough call. To them, it's obvious--give it to the guy who is ahead, and bring the party together. They think all Democrats want the party to thrive.

In fact, if the Dems nominate Obama, a good portion (say 15-20%) of the people who customarily vote for Democrats in presidential elections will enjoy watching their punishment. If this is the year the Dems need to be taught that lesson, so be it. But you'd think more of them would have a better sense of history.

One thing that hacks have trouble grasping is that not everyone thinks "a Democratic president" is preferable to "a competent president". Clinton's supporters may actively want her to gut Obama badly. I still hadn't made up my mind between Clinton and McCain, but I'm actively anti-Obama, who I don't want within a thousand miles of the presidency. I don't think he has a chance of winning, but I'd much rather he not even have that much.

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton is not only justified in keeping the campaign going, but she's doing the country a favor by reducing his already dismal chances to nil. I don't want anything going wrong with his eventual loss, should he be the nominee. Not only should Clinton continue to active fighting for it, she should do her best to be sure that Obama is metaphorically gutted, run through with a spit, tied up with his long intestines, and left to putrefy and decompose while John McCain walks calmly by on his way to the presidency, wrinkling his nose at the odor.

Liberal, or "progressive" hacks, have a problem with ideological lockjaw. They forget that lots of Democratic voters loathe liberals far, far more than they loathe conservatives, much less McCain.

Clinton knows this. I suspect superdelegates do as well. It's not easy to mull their choices, because without question, upsetting blacks is a tough call, too.

Hacks have trouble realizing it's a tough call. To them, it's obvious--give it to the guy who is ahead, and bring the party together. They think all Democrats want the party to thrive.

In fact, if the Dems nominate Obama, a good portion (say 15-20%) of the people who customarily vote for Democrats in presidential elections will enjoy watching their punishment. If this is the year the Dems need to be taught that lesson, so be it. But you'd think more of them would have a better sense of history.

Cal, with an attitude like that, you might want to break into Obama's offices at the Watergate to make sure he's not in league with the Communists. Seriously, if it's that crucial... sounds like you've fallen victim to the fanaticism of your typical right-wing loon. Both Hillary and Obama would make good presidents. McCain a bad one. That is, if you're concerned about policy issues.

Both Hillary and Obama would make good presidents. McCain a bad one.

See what I mean? There are plenty of people who support Clinton who disagree and think Obama would be a terrible president, and would simply never vote for him.

So long as you fail to realize that, you will continue to scoff at the polls that usually show Obama bleeding far more Clinton voters than the other way around (at best, they are tied), and figure that everyone is like you--a hack who ultimately will kneel down in Obama worship for the good of the party.

But not everyone views the leadership of the country in such a profoundly partisan fashion, and that could (and indeed, with all but the worst luck will) prove fatal to Obama, should the Dems be stupid enough to give him the nomination.

Clinton has been accused of destroying the democratic party so often and so shrilly, she might as well go ahead and do it.

Run as an indie, Hillary! You might get more of a plurality than Bill did in 92!

Cal, it depends whether you think that actual policies that the candidates would support and advocate for will harm or hurt the country. You've not backed up your claims with anything other than vigorous assertions which, you assure us, are what "lots of people think."

In any case, the fundamentals of the race are such that Obama and Hillary are favored to win. I haven't seen much to back up any of your contentions that (a) Obama would be a worse president than McCain, or (b) voters will defect from Obama en masse to elect McCain in an otherwise democratic-sweep-year.

> They forget that lots of
> Democratic voters loathe
> liberals far, far more than
> they loathe conservatives,
> much less McCain.
>
> Clinton knows this.

So, um, what exactly is the difference between Clinton and McCain supposed to be then? The difference between Liebercrats and the Radical Right in general?

You aren't exactly convincing me to support Clinton, that's for sure.

Cranky

At this point, isn't 10% ludicrously optimistic for the Clinton camp? Why do we keep pretending that there's a viable victory scenario for her?

Please stop perpetuating this farce.

Democrats need to think long and hard about nominating a candidate that is going to rural America with the message that they like their guns, like their churches and are haters, bigots and anti-immigrant because they can't get good jobs.

Then the candidate turns around and says, well I may have mangled my words but I still stand by the sentiment.

If Hillary or McCain had any balls they would challenge Obama to have these racist, bigots and foriegner haters come forward so we can see he's telling the truth. They would ask the question at every public event for the haters, the bigots the gun and church nuts to come forward so the press can interview them to show Barack is right.

Maybe a lot of people in PA said "Hey you know what? You're right. I don't expect economic help from Washington, I AM bitter about that." My parents are the same way, and they live in IL in the republican senate district that just went democrat for the first time in something like 100 years lol. Maybe, just maybe, middle america is a bit ahead of the curve than the MSM this time? Maybe, just maybe, middle america is rooting for the candidate that is talking about the real issues instead of just shamelessly pandering for their vote? Maybe America is ready to work together again and help rebuild this country? That's a lot of maybes.

Cal, I'm sorry my man, but baseless, opinionated, factless, thruthiness rant-posts don't fly with us "liberal hacks." Stop being so sour that MORE people want Obama to win. If it was the otherway around, then why aren't people voting that way? Get a grip man. What's most sad about the whole thing is that Hillary has to resort to taking Obama out of context, republican style, just to even have a shot at winning. America keeps answering back, "not this time. This time we rise above this crap. This time we face the hard truths. This time we face our problems with something other than guns. This time, we do what's hard, but what is right."

People like you won't get that, and never will.

There are plenty of people who support Clinton who disagree and think Obama would be a terrible president, and would simply never vote for him.

"Not only should Clinton continue to active fighting for it, she should do her best to be sure that Obama is metaphorically gutted, run through with a spit, tied up with his long intestines, and left to putrefy and decompose while John McCain walks calmly by on his way to the presidency, wrinkling his nose at the odor."

Or maybe someone should just beat him, gouge his eye out, shoot him in the head, tie a 75-pound cotton gin fan around his neck with barbed wire, and toss his remains in the Tallahatchie River. That sounds more like what Cal would really dig seeing.

The reason this thing is sexist is that it's applying a double standard. Senator Clinton is not far behind. She's about 1% behind. The media and Obamanation have closed out all considerations except the horse race angle, and have pronounced him ahead in the horse race. But there are other considerations, and the Clinton campaign has raised them, as they should.

1. Focus on the Number of States - the media's favorite measure of Obama's "big lead" is wrong. For me, this is the scariest of the many crap elements of the Obama "strength." I'm happy that Obama did well in Idaho, my home state, and that it gave a lift to the outnumbered Democrats in Idaho, but the problem is that I don't think Idaho's electoral votes will go to any Democrat in November. Same with North Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. etc. Now, as offensive as this is to the internet Obamans, the Democratic strength of a state should be considered in measuring a candidate's chances in the general election. As a matter of fact, the strategy of the Obama campaign mimics that of the 1972 McGovern campaign, where McGovernites (including, I guess, young Hillary Clinton) concentrated on small, Republican states with caucuses, amassed a lot of delegates for the convention and prevailed over the large Democratic primary states - and then were decisively defeated by Richard Nixon. So, this is reason #1 why Senator Obama's tremendous lead should be viewed skeptically. Senator Clinton's wins in most of the large Democratic states where voters actually voted are more critical for the general election than the string of small Red states in Senator Obama's column.

2. Respect for votes and voters is fundamental to democracy - and Senator Clinton is statistically tied with Obama and has good prospects to prevail in number of voters when all states are counted. As a strategy, though, the Obama campaign has mostly steered clear of tests by voters. The Obama campaign was just getting started in choosing caucuses over primaries as their road to victory. Ducking involvement in the Florida and Michigan primaries - and sabotaging the revote/recaucus efforts were political tactics, not principled decisions. Longer-range thinking might have established that FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN ARE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF A DEMOCRATIC VICTORY IN NOVEMBER. Senator Clinton rightly played a more cautious role of going along with the DNC technically while preserving her ties with Michigan and Florida voters. Despite the obvious need to respect the voters of Michigan and Florida (who, remember, were not involved in the DNC dispute), the Obama campaign continues to insist on evicting Michigan and Florida voters from the process. Bad idea. Michigan and Florida are still a part of the United States, even if that is inconvenient for the Obama campaign strategy.
The legitimate delegate majority is not 2045 but 2214.

These are gender-free issues of political strategy, but they define the direction of the Obama and Clinton campaigns. The sexism comes in as the medicine to make the Obama doctrine go down. Attack her "character" and her "trustworthiness" rather than face the reality that her strategy is more democratic (and Democratic), and the better map to winning the Presidency. Senator Obama never had any particular facts in his record or campaign structure to support his claim that he represented a higher, better kind of politics - he just said so. That may be OK for the "low-information" voters, but it makes no sense for the "creative class" to continue to make an issue over "failure to apologize" and to join the right-leaning media in labeling the Bosnia flight stuff as a lie. You don't need to be a hysterical, hormonal feminist to see the imbalance in the political prognosticating, and the clearly prejudicial treatment in the media as SEXISM. One word.