"Put simply, it's her message, not her presence, that's attracting criticism."
Aw, nonsense. All politicians are opportunists, that's a necessary characteristic for being successful, you shouldn't put so much emphasis on their campaign messages. Or do you really believe the obscure CHANGE Obama promises to deliver will be substantially different from what Clinton would accomplish? This would be naive. From what I see from the Obama crowd, it's just Clinton's presence, that's standing between their beloved candidate and the nomination, that's sparking the flames. But maybe I'm just too cynical for these primary games.

Actually I think the change that Obama may deliver to be substantially different. Why?

Right now it's a fundamentally conservative frame of reference inside of D.C., and has been since Reagan. (See the assignment desk above for a graphical display of this). Issues and solutions are put through a conservative filter of sorts, one that doesn't work anymore.

Obama's change, is to bring people..both non-voters and moderate Republicans into our side, into the progressive side. You can still have conservative WAYS to reach those progressive goals, but you have to buy into the progressive goals themselves to get a seat at the table.

But it's to create a progressive consensus, rather than the deadlock that's currently in place. It's the cynicism that says that this deadlock is the only way it CAN be that is driving the Clinton campaign and movement.

I'm caught between being worried about what this is doing to our chances in November, and being happy that at least half the party is starting to see Hillary Clinton the way I have for the last 4 years.

Hillary isn't standing between Obama and the nomination at this point. There's nothing she can do to secure that for herself. Shes trying to blackmail the party and poison the well among her supporters so they think this was stolen from her and refuse to vote for Obama. She's not standing between Obama and the nomination, she's standing between Obama and the White House.

So much for the crowing her and her supporters did early in the primary about what 'loyal Democrats' they are.

soullite

free ponies?
:-)

But what Clinton is actually doing is giving wildly misleading speeches trying to poison the well in Michigan and Florida, opportunistically telling the voters of two major states that a decision she supported until it become inconvenient is a reason to believe that Obama and the Party dismiss or seek to repress their votes, and only Clinton cares for their democratic rights. As a message, it's a mixture of toxic lies and scorched earth campaigning.

This needs to be repeated, and often.

Thank you, Ezra.

Clinton can, and should, finish the campaign. She has come too far at this point to drop out.

That's it? That's the entire rationale for her staying in the campaign? I don't see anything in Ezra's post that argues the case any further. She's "come too far to drop out"? Sorry, but what the hell kind of reasoning is that?

Imagine that John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich were also still in the race, even though it's been clear for a very long time that they couldn't win the nomination. But if they were still in it by now, we could certainly say that they've come this far; so then they should continue in that scenario? Even though everyone knows damn well that they won't be nominated?

We have known since March 4th that Obama will be the nominee, and that Clinton won't be, and the entire process since then has been a gigantic farce. What useful purpose is served by Clinton's continuing presence in this race, whose outcome has already been clear for months? At the very best, it's just a waste of time, but it's been far, far worse than that. The contest has been divisive, has sowed enormous distrust within the party, and has been an enormous waste of resources.

And now, nearly three months since March 4th, we have gained nothing. We now know exactly what he knew then, which is that Obama will be the nominee, and Clinton won't be. What a pointless circus!

People seem to act as if beating McCain will be a piece of cake, but I think that is recklessly naive; we certainly shouldn't be taking any chances. Why in the world should we be distracted by that in order to carry on with a primary that's already long been settled?

I'm sorry, Ezra, but I'd like to ask you to explain this again. Why on God's green Earth should Hillary Clinton still be in this race, even though we've already known for months that she won't be the nominee? What could the point possibly be? How could it have been worth it to have gone through this entire mess?

I wrote:

And now, nearly three months since March 4th, we have gained nothing. We now know exactly what he knew then ...

Should have been:

And now, nearly three months since March 4th, we have gained nothing. We now know exactly what we knew then ...

... the point being, it's not just that Obama knew it, but rather that we all knew it, except of course delusional Clintonites.

(Sure would be nice to have a comment preview function here at TAP. Just sayin'.)

LOL at Obama supporters advising Clinton. Doesn't get any more concern trolling than that.

Trollite, Obama (and you) have poisoned that well you speak of, not Clinton.

Clinton can, and should, finish the campaign. She has come too far at this point to drop out.

Ezra might have phrased this a bit more clearly. Hillary has made 'counting all the primary votes' a big issue (including MI and FL), so a drop-out now would leave many folks angered (PR, MT, MI, FL, etc.) because their voice wasn't heard. Never before, in my recollection, has the claim that all the primaries must be held and counted before a candidate is declared - but that's now on the table and the balance of interests suggests waiting till June 3rd's results is less disruptive of the party unity.

Yes, she should have suspended or withdrawn earlier, and yes, she shouldn't have embarked on a scorched earth policy against Obama and also raised these phony metrics (other than delegates won).

But Hillary did those things, and therefore waiting until June 3 is probably best for the party's unity over the rest of the campaign.

This AM I'm a bright-side person: Hillary has clearly demonstrated that she and Bill are the object of their desires for the future - not the party, not winning in Nov., not the need to wrest the country from the cold dead hands of a lying, unlawful GOP machine. She is no longer worthy of a major role in the Dem. party, and that seems clear - a benefit amid the shame that is the Clinton's behavior of recent months.

So, let her stay in, but stop her attacks on the probable candidate, on the fairness of the nominating process, and on the unity of the party.

Let me add that not only should Bill and Hill retire to NYC and cease to attempt to control the Dem. party, but her inner circle of confederates (McAuliffe et.al) should be banished from access to party councils. Let's write 'fini' to the Clinton Era.

Shorter Ezra,

Hillary's a miserable bitch for pointing out shortcomings of my candidate..if she would only praise Barak effusively and attack McCain viciously, I'd support her nutty idea that she might be president...I mean...she's a "nice enough" girl why doesn't she act like it?

Ezra, this is your job? Sure it makes your demographic happy, but just as you accuse Hillary of splitting the party, post like this are far more damaging to party unity.

Why write anything on the subject, most of the Democratic hatred of Barak Obamma comes from patronizing posts put forth by the A-list blog and the comments that follow each such post.

Give it a rest, remember Marshal, Sullivan, Drum, Cole et al. were supporters of the Iraq...where's the humility? How can A-bloggers be so cocky after being so wrong?

Not that Cole has ever come across as cocky, but the majority of A-list bloggers who now support Barak, supported the war.

If you feel the need to attack, question why both Barak and Hillary have supported the war in their senate terms and ask why this is our "choice"?

If you think FL and MI not voting for Obama in November is the result of any action of Hillary, guess again. Those folks have been screwed by Dean and Obama, and I suspect, and the maps show, that as a result Obama will in no way possible be president. So grow up and accept the reality, and quit blaming Hillary. Of course you don't have to, but you're in for a nasty surprise when you are forced to. Face it, Hillary is the only Democrat who can win in November. You can bet the repuglies know it.

Clinton pushed the Mi/Fl line of garbage after she agreed to the same rules that Obama did. The fact that folks like jimbo are pushing tired and completely false nonsense is a demonstration that the way a campaign is run actually does matter. Clinton spread a pile of manure, her supporters got invested in it, and there is active harm to the party resulting from this particular tactic. Fortuntely Michigan is an Obama-leaning state and he is well ahead in the polls there; and Florida is a likely GOP state regardless. As a result the damage will be limited, but is still real.

Clinton has such incredibly high negatives that she would certainly lose if nominated. This is especially true because there is, at this point, no legitimate way for her to actually get the nomination. And that's even before she gets another chance to squander money on an incompetent general election campaign.

Put simply, it's her message, not her presence, that's attracting criticism."

A distinction without a difference. Sometimes you stop asking why a person does something and say that's what she does.

But this won't hurt Obama. The longer the Clinton campaign goes, the more ridiculous she'll look. The Clintons lose power every day with their stunts. They rightfully realize that one can never count on the next election cycle. Too much happens to the dynamics in between.

Clinton took herself out of this election. It was hers to loose and she lost it. Not just in a small way but in a big way with flames and sonic booms. She's played the perfect rethug tool. She's demonstrated she's a hell of a fighter but she's picked the wrong targets.

No, sorry. It's time for Clinton to step down. That won't happen, of course. This campaign is now all about her. It's clear from her own words and from the bile spouted by the loudest of her supporters, it's Hillary or nothing.

I'll vote for whichever dem gets the nod. That hasn't changed for me since the beginning of this debacle. But I'm also appalled at Clinton's (both of them) and what they've done to damage the party in pursuit of their own goals.

It's a shame.

That isn't concern trolling. I have little or no concern for Clinton personally (or Obama). What I want is a strong party and to take more seats on the hill and to get a D in the white house. That's my goal and anyone that I perceive as damaging that, despite their history or party affiliation, is my political foe.

Hillary, you had your chance, you blew it. Time to sit down.

"Let's write 'fini' to the Clinton Era."

Guess you're one of those Ken Starr rethugs who never got over the success of a democrat actually winning the White House...twice, huh?

"It was hers to loose and she lost it."

LOL in a big way, with flames and sonic booms.

I don't believe Hillary Clinton is susceptible to reasoned argument at this point. The responsibility of ending this race has to fall on the party leadership, who need to organize and move the superdelegates.

Lmao, I'm not 'advising' Clinton. I'm straightening out Clinton supporters. There's a difference. I didn't say anything was in Hillary's best interest, I talked about the party. There's a huge difference between the two that HRC supporters don't really seem to grasp. As I said, I'm kind of glad for how she's behaved. A year ago people here treated me like a raving lunatic because I tried to warn them about Hillary and how she would campaign. It's just not worth saying 'I told you so' if Obama loses the white house because shes running around fomenting all the gender and MI/FL resentment she can to sink Obama.

But hey, your the guy who interpreted a call for Protest in Denver as my declaration of race riots, so I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't up to snuff.

"It's just not worth saying 'I told you so' if Obama loses the white house because shes running around fomenting all the gender and MI/FL resentment she can to sink Obama."

Tee-hee. Nice try, but you know that wouldn't be why he lost it. If he loses it, it will be because of you. We see the myth as you're writing it, you know. We're right in front of you...in the same room...as you make up these lies. If Obama loses in the fall it will be because of republicans like you, pretending they are supporters of his, spreading division within the democratic party.

Trying to pin the blame on Clinton or her supporters isn't going to fly.

Lmao, I'm not the one who refuses to post with a handle so I have no verifiable history on the internet, and I've been commenting on Ezra's site for years. You showed up half-way through a contested campaign spreading racist fears and stridently taking the obvious losers side.

You're the only person here who thinks I'm a Republican, while half the site thinks you're a Republican troll. There's a good reason for that. I abandoned my first choice the moment it was obvious that he couldn't win and rallied behind the inevitable winner. You? You didn't even exist 6 months ago.

"I'm done with you Anonymous. This is the last time I'm ever responding to you.

Posted by: Soullite | May 11, 2008 10:56 AM"

LOL

Well put, Ezra, but since she's shown she won't change her message, it's time for the rest of the party to end the race for her. The remaining 3 contests will not add any new information at this point, so there is no reason for the superdelegates to wait until June 4 to put Obama over the top.

The "Hillary should quit now" argument is made entirely out of bad faith, and it’s easy to prove. If indeed she can’t win, whether or not she quits is irrelevant, just as it was irrelevant whether Mike Gravel quit or not. If she can win, then telling her to quit is stupid and insulting…not to her, but to those who support her. There’s no third possibility.

Sorry I don't have time to post under a handle, there's a LOT of trolling to do. Now that we're getting our ass kicked, the job of a Republican troll is pretty taxing. lol.

Anyway, I got to be going. Strawmen arguments don't post themselves.

Tootles

It's NOT irrelevant how and when she quits. Despite her feint at modulation post IN/NC, EVERYTHING Clinton has done inthe month of May has been designed to foster the belief that Obama's win is illegitimate; that the nomination was "stolen" from here. How, please tell me, is this helpful? Rahm had it right: victory in November depends most on how the primary loser loses. Clinton is not plausibly going for the win anymore; she's trying to kneecap the winner.

There are plenty of charts that show Clinton's strength vs McInance compared to Obama's weakness vs McInane. You can bet the supers are looking at these. There is nothing that Obama can do to change these charts in the next few months. In fact, the trends show that Obama is weakening further. You folks can scream and holler and call people racists and all the other garbage you folks do, but you can't change reality.

If Obama loses in November an awful lot of people are going to be blaming Hillary. Isn't she killing any future chances to become President just now?

Lmao, sure you don't. You just have the time to comment 20 times a day on here.

Please, you're a Republican Troll. Nobody buys your BS excuses, it's pathetic you bother to even keep going on and on and on with them.

Jimbo, what charts are those? I haven't seen anything to really indicate this, unless you think 25% of Hillary's supporters really won't vote for Obama(lol, this is common at this stage in the campaign). Even then, the polls have him running even with McCain.

There are plenty of charts that show Clinton's strength vs McInance compared to Obama's weakness vs McInane. You can bet the supers are looking at these.

And that's why so many supers have shifted their allegiances from Obama to Clinton, right? Oh, wait, it's the other way around.

Hillary drove me into the Obama camp, even though I don't think he'll be able to implement all that much change! I'd expect his first year to be rough. But all I want is a president who falls within the basic parameters of human decency.
Hillary considers herself an expert on pushback, and how to handle it, but she has become the pushback! Her first year might be smoother, as she propels the country triangulatedly into places we don't want it to go. The first Clinton years brought us deregulation, don't ask don't tell, welfare "reform" aka slave wages for dead-end jobs. And NAFTA. And do you believe the Clintons supported these programs for the good of the country? Or were they driven by polls and lobbyists?
The Fl/Mi gambit is pure political maneuvering, nice and dirty. I would be ASHAMED to claim victory in a race where mine was the only name on the ballot. How Stalinist.
I have gone from being proud as a woman seeing a woman as a serious candidate to mortified as a woman seeing a woman turn the whole campaign sour.
The salt in my wound is hearing Hillary ascribing criticism of her to sexism. Her actions as a candidate have indeed been groundbreaking: first candidate to promote the nominee of the other party over a primary opponent, first candidate to run a ten-month campaign; first candidate to go from $200 million plus frontrunner to indebted also-ran.
She's my Senator. I voted for her twice. If she wangles the nomination somehow, I'll have to put two clothespins on my nose to vote for her, but I'll do it. But never, never, again. And should she come back to the Senate, I will support her opponent. I won't be rejecting her because she is a woman; I'll be rejecting her for herself.

Apparently 40 Clinton delegates have gotten together and decided to slowly start announcing a switch to Obama. The superdelegates will do so before the convention, one at a time. The pledged delegates are planning on switching over to Obama on the second ballot if there is one. Instead of strengthening her hand, she is just running up both of their negatives and driving her supporters into a frenzy. Tell me, how much is her style that much different than Rove's?

"I'm done with you Anonymous. This is the last time I'm ever responding to you.

Posted by: Soullite | May 11, 2008 10:56 AM"

"Please, you're a Republican Troll. Nobody buys your BS excuses, it's pathetic you bother to even keep going on and on and on with them.

Posted by: Soullite | May 25, 2008 11:47 PM"

LOL. So much for your credibility.

Polly says HRC is the first candidate to promote a republican candidate over her democratic opponent. This deserves more attention -- and is behavior in complete contradiction to Hillary's claim that she stays in the race out of concern for the democratic party and its victory in November.

….it's her message, not her presence, that's attracting criticism…
That is the complete opposite of the facts. Obamacans hate her because she is still challenging and defeating The One.

As I look around the supposedly 'progressive' and 'liberal' blogs, two things stand out. One, to a person, they all say that universal health care is the major policy issue and to a person they support the only candidate who does not support it. Indeed, Obama proudly lies and claims that his policy will provide it, but the facts prove otherwise. The second is the issue of ending the Iraq war. Obama has said "Let me be clear: ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers
involved. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure." - Obama.
By-the-way, Obama had other things to say about the Iraq war: He href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html">was hedging as late as 2006
Using the phrase "our commanders on the ground" is an echo of Bush. Clinton has promised to begin a drawdown forthwith.

One can only conclude from the position of you self-proclaimed 'progressives' that either you are hypocrites or simply phonies, but progressive you are not.

….happy that at least half the party is starting to see Hillary Clinton the way I have for the last 4 years….Rovellite
So does the fact that over half the party doesn't see your candidate as you do give you pause? No, of course not. You remain wedding to the platitudes of a candidate who uses Republican talking points against universal health care, lies in your face about his position on NAFTA, and promises to work with radical Republicans and insists on dividing the Democratic Party like any good little Republicrat.

…But what Clinton is actually doing is … poison the well in Michigan and Florida, …
That is deeply offensive to both Democratic ideals that believe votes should count and to the people of two states who went to the trouble to vote. You, like your candidate and Republicans, are more than happy to disenfranchise votes for your political agenda. You should be ashamed, but your support for Obama proves you have no principles to violate.

….Why on God's green Earth should Hillary Clinton still be in this race, even though we've already known for months that she won't be the nominee?….Buckeye Hamburger
Because she has received the most popular votes and manages to cream your candidate in states that Democrats need to defeat McCain. Other than that, of course you should decide elections. No one else matters.

….she agreed to the same rules that Obama did…. Marc
Obama is the one that ran ads in Florida, not Clinton; and, despite your claim of her high negatives, she polls better against More-of-the-Same McCain than your candidate.

Lmao, apparently running ads over the entire country is 'running ads in Florida'.

This is the delusional nonsense that is the primary reason why Hillary will get some of the blame for an Obama loss. She is making fostering too much resentment among her supporters, to the point where they can pretend she was 'cheated' out of the nomination she 'deserved'.

Make no mistake, Obama will get plenty of the blame too. So will the entire Super-delegate system that provided the fuel for the belief that Obama cheated Hillary. But Hillary will share in that blame as well.

Hillary's Daily News op-ed was a load of horse manure. She can't think rationally because she has her head stuck up her rear-end. Hillary is a disgrace to the Democratic party with her race-baiting and fear-mongering. She needs to take a hike.

"She is making fostering too much resentment among her supporters, to the point where they can pretend she was 'cheated' out of the nomination she 'deserved'."

Yeah, no. She's fostering support from her supporters. You, not Clinton nor even Obama so much, YOU and your incessant Clinton frothing are fostering their resentment If we lose in the fall it will be because of YOU.