I guess he'll have to go negative.  Perhaps there is a positive way to go negative.

My main gripe against Hillary is her saying that McCain is better on national security issues than Obama is.  A Democrat should NEVER hand that kind of ammunition to the enemy.  It's inexcusable.

"All things considered, this has not been an ugly primary."

AMEN. These are two candidates with zero executive experience and precious little national legislative experience. How they would act as president is anyone's guess. The only really useful way that we voters can assess them is to observe them under the pressure cooker of the presidential campaign, and see what they actually believe in, whether they have real steel in the spine and solid, mature judgment. Frankly, for the campaign to actually provide voters the information they need about these two green and untested candidates, it needs to get a lot rougher and a lot more specific on some difficult issues that neither candidate has shown much if any aptitude for, including

-- the dollar. It's in free fall now. Is a weak dollar policy the right thing for the country now? Would you replace Bernanke and get a Fed chief committed to a strong dollar policy, ie RAISING interest rates now?

-- NATO. It's become a joke, and is in serious danger of losing the war-- the good war, remember, the one against the Taliban. Leave aside the BS about a "muslim summit" and tell us how you intend to convince the Germans and the French to put their troops in harm's way, in the combat zones to the south of Afghan, instead of pushing cookies hundresd of miles away from combat, in the north. Alternatively, if NATO's dead-- as I believe it is-- then tell us what security arrangements and alliances we can and should commit ourselves to in this (Asian) century.

-- Mexico. economic relationship with, NAFTA's failure etc (y'all know the drill)

Way too early for harvest, folks; the corn is green. Let's see what if anything these two have to say about these and other hellishly difficult challenges we're facing now, challenges that pre-dated the Iraq War and that we will face for many years to come.

You are so wrong. And it's not a matter of delicacy, its the match plus Geraldine Ferrero's mouth [you may of course insert Dee Dee Meyers name if you choose].

Michelle, if you honestly think that African American's aren't listening to those "the country is more sexist than it is racist" screeds, comparing the 25 women in high office to the 2 African Americans and wondering why that is in a way that's potentially deadly to the Democratic Party you are just plain out of your mind.

Well, point to Michelle.

As much as I honestly don't think I can vote for Hillary Clinton for president under any circumstances not involving the names "Giuliani" or "Allen," I did stop and take a moment to look in admiration at the Democratic ballot when I voted in Virginia last month. At the top of my party's ballot were the names of a black man and a woman. A black man I believe has the stuff to be the best president of my lifetime, and a women whom lots of people I respect believe would be a fine chief executive too. That was a pretty cool moment, no matter how strongly I felt about Hillary being just about the worst potential president from either party.

It also made me more comfortable with the identity-politics implications of voting for Obama. Statistically, even in an America of perfect equality of opportunity, we can't expect to have a black major-party nominee more than once every 20 years or so. But there are so many qualified women in politics now -- not nearly as many as there should be, but enough to matter -- that I have no doubt serious women contenders for president will be the rule, not the exception, for the rest of my life. The results from Ohio, in which openly sexist voters actually favored the woman candidate, are also kind of encouraging in this regard. I really, really want a woman to be president, and Hillary's run has convinced me that I will get my wish very soon.

Phew, thanks, I needed that.

I was becoming concerned that the frontrunner was not going to be able to drive this thing through to its conclusion, what with both his hands wrapped firmly around his own neck.  

And concerned that the challenger thinks the best way to get back in this thing is to remind people that she'll be awake to answer a 3 am phonecall because she can't sleep while not having the foggiest idea of where her husband might be.

Arson, I myself couldn't give a f*** about the candidates' race or gender, and I suspect that a lot of people who've shifted their views in recent months don't care, either. The identity politics cluster is utterly trivial when set beside the massive and growing challenges this nation is facing now in the economic/financial and foreign-policy realms. Banks aren't lending to each other. The financial markets are melting down. The dollar is in free fall; people on Wall Street are sneering at the "peso-ization" of the dollar.  Bernanke is falling on his face.

The sh*tstorm is here, and most people with some hard experience of life and insight into economic realities-- like those gray-haired Ohio union members and other voters in TX and RI who shifted to Clinton at the last minute-- are deeply concerned about turning the policy reins over to someone who offers no expertise, no reasurance, no evidence of laser-like ability to focus on this economic storm we're in now.

Such concerns are not racist; they're the antithesis of racism. If Obama can cease with the Tony Robbins/Oprah BS and start getting real, and convincing, on economic and financial matters, then great, let's rally behind him. But the ball's in his court now.

STOP THE MADNESS....Michelle Cottle has the rare good sense to agree with me, so I'm going to quote her at length:Enough with all the whining. Also enough with all the smack talk about how there must be something seriously wrong...

Arson - I agree with you completely.

Unfortunately, the identity politics piece if this has been made definitive by the Hillary campaign and the whole cauterwauling dynamic only gets louder.  

If I have to listen to or read about one more self-righteous over 55 white woman stamping her foot that Obama isn't "respecting" poor Hillary enough and oh the sexism of it all, I will vomit on said woman's shoes.  

I have yet to see a more dignified, gentlemanly campaigner on my lifetime or a press less willing to attack bellow the belt (Kathleen Wiley anyone? 35 years doing exactly WHAT?  Selecting menus?) and Hillary has worked both Obama and us utterly to death for it.  Except for two frat house cracks from notoriously idiotic TV nitwits, she's been an utterly pampered princess in this whole thing from day 1.  

Gloria Steinem?  You say gender is the single biggest impediment in this country?  You are so full of it, you're an entitled embarassing jackass and I say this as a old white feminst. Are one in four owner of ovaries rotting in jail right now?  How dare you?

Would that we decide elections based on Tep's priorities - wouldn't that be a terrific change of pace.  I wouldn't hold my breath.  Hillary just has to dog whistle her armies of frustrated women who don't even bother to pay much attention to her actual life (marrying her way into the position she's in insipring in what way again?) and mostly on her gonads and her year of birth.  It's disgusting.

It's been plenty ugly, and it will get uglier.

Hillary says the truth for once, and you all have a fit.

McCain IS much more qualified on national defense, security, and foreign affairs than Obama.

Maybe she would sincerely feel safer with McCain in the White House if she can't be.  

Ultimately this is the second thought that will end Obama's premature presidential bid.  

When he grows up and gets some relevant experience under his belt, he can come back and try again.

teplukhin2you

Look, its not that you don't have a point, its that your point isn't backed up by either the polling data or the tactics Clinton's deployed. By the way, I was specifically refuting Cottle's point, not making an argument as to which issues should be the most important in the campaign. I'd rather be having your conversation than this one.

ok, i hear you arson. I don't support Hillary, and I think that McCain's out of his depth on economics. I guess I find it frustrating that the most intelligent candidate in the race simply refuses to engage his intelligence with these issues that, sooner or later, will dominate our politics. It's a crisis, and we keep acting like it doesn't exist. Obama needs to show a little leadership here and start rinning the alarm bell, shifting the agenda.

Tepluh, both Hillary and Obama want voters to be dissatisfied with the economy.  But, they don't want to scare the shit out of them.  They're afraid to do something too destabilizing because they're not sure what the effect of tht would be.  And they don't want to be accused by the GOP of pushing a self-fulfilling recession.  Or, to your POV, a depression on a scale with the 1930s.

Wandreycer, you totally prove Michelle's point with your anger.  We're all reasonable here and we  agree that it shouldn't be about identity politics at all.  But lets not pretend that both sides aren't willing to use thier respective identity-politics advantages as best they can.  On the other hand - really - neither side has based thier entire campaign on it and neither side has - really - used it to attack the other, either.    Of course, in an election featuring a woman and a black man you're going to have people all over the place saying things - many of them stupid - about gender and race.  But Gloria Steinem is not running for president.  Every day, hundreds, maybe thousands of Hillary and Obama supporters are saying all kinds of things.  What we hear is what the press decides is interesting to tell us.  

Frankly, I think it's fair game to attempt to show people what is at stake (in foreign or domestic policy) when we consider who to support in our choice for president.

Maybe if folks thought more about how their loved ones are affected by policies on education, crime, war, etc., they would quit letting party activists and the media pull their strings.

Well, I'll be damned....of all the things in the world to read in The New Republic; common sense. Not a word of dripping vitriol against Sen Clinton, not a hint of drooling adulation for Sen. Obama, and a little bit of a well deserved smack to both of them with the admonition to get over it and move on.

Nicely done Ms. Cottle and thank you.

And be sure to let us all know where you wind up writing next.

Hey, it's a joke, ok? I hope.

The reason Hillary and Barack showed mutual respect for as long as they did was that each felt they could outpoint the other on the basis of their charisma alone. Both have big egos - no, stop, gargantuan egos - and I suspect neither takes the other entirely seriously. I think Hillary was disabused of her presumption when she lost state after state over the span of two and a half weeks; now it's Barack's turn to taste blood in the mouth. Tep is exactly right, however, about the need for both to get a little bloodied and knocked off their pedestals so they can take advantage of what a real campaign offers a politician: hard training and hard knocks. I think Hill has been there personally before but not as a candidate in her own right. It feels very different when you're the one who takes it on the chin. Unforgettable, and indispensable. Let the show go on, it's just getting good. Democrats have forgotten how to fight with each other in a sporting way, which means lots of psych and an elbow or knee when feasible.

If you recall, every losing Democrat since Dukakis has made the fatal error of campaigning too reasonably and civilly, until the final two or three weeks when they decided they had no recourse but run like their bloody lives depended on it. Each time they started too late, however, and blew their one best chance to win. Our nominee this year, whether Clinton or Obama, will have to fight just as hard and passionately as they did but start sooner. Don't kid yourselves into thinking that McCain will blow himself up without our setting the match to him and fanning the flames. Remember, Karl Rove has his little list and he won't hesitate to share it with McCain and tell him how to use it. McCain will take direction willingly from his betters. He's not as proud and inflated as either Clinton or Obama and he knows from sad experience what works and what doesn't. He's not poor old Bob Dole, don't think that for a minute, or we'll be waiting once again for next time in 2012.

What tomeg said. Be tough, be specific, and speak directly to people's fears. If they're not afraid about our economic prospects, they should be. Stagflation's a nightmare we don't want to repeat.

"McCain IS much more qualified on national defense, security, and foreign affairs than Obama."

By what reasonoable standard?  You have to start from the conclusion you want to reach (that the best way to meet the world is through an overwhelming military, and that building and supporting international institutions, and actually trying to lead the world rather than bully it into our way of doing things is a fool's game) in order to conclude that McCain obviously has more to offer than Obama on this.  The answer to which he has devoted his political life is not necessarily the right answer!

"McCain IS much more qualified on national defense, security, and foreign affairs than Obama."

That book "The Guns of August" pops into my head in its entirety every time I've read or heard the word "experience" for the last  seven years.

The idea that the same morons who got us into this mess, will do but anything but make it worse, gives me one of those brain trying to reject the information type headaches. I mean exactly what is it about knowing a ridiculously outdated national security apparatus that prepares one for the future?

Excellent reference, arsonplus.  All the experience in the world didn't stop Europe from sucking the world into one of its more pointless cataclysms in August 1918.  Fighting a twentieth-century war with a nineteenth-century experience worked wonderfully there, huh?  So why do supposedly intelligent people keep insisting that McCain's decidedly twentieth-century experience is so superior for fighting a twenty-first-century war?  Somebody in Obama's camp better start hammering on this fast.  I'm not sure it's a case Hillary can make, but they're welcome to try too.

Arsonplus -

The question isn't whether or not sexism is more prevalent than racism, it is not. Nonetheless, sexist language and attacks based on gender are more acceptable as part of our public and political conversation than racist language and attacks.

Some of this is because it is simply not seen as dangerous for men to verbally bully women. But a lot of it has to do with the fact that politically correct language is often used by elites to obscure or as a substitute for addressing deeper more significant forms  of racism. For instance, the mainstream press gave more coverage to and raised a much larger hew and cry  about Clintons LBJ quote than about recent reports on the  shameful  rates at which this nation incarcerates young black men.

Now that's morally disgusting. And undeniably racist.