(Jon is also, like Wilson, brilliant, skinny, and interesting in progressive social reform, though Jon is a far nicer person, not a segregationist, and less prone to doing things like censoring political dissidents.)

This has got to be the greatest aside ever appearing on TNR.com

It's worth noting, in this context, that Obama just picked up a swing of 8 delegates in CA. Hillary lost 4 and Obama picked up 4 because of previous calculation mistakes.

Huh. I once got into an argument with a Russian guy in Amsterdam, in pidgin Russo-Dutch, about whether Wilson was a great man. "Wilson, grote president!" my Russian drinking buddy kept insisting. I tried to argue the point on segregation, but "zwaarte Amerikanse" was as close as I could get, before Sergei went back to listing Wilson's many fine points. Which I believe had mainly to do with killing Germans. He kept saying "juden" as well, but I never go the gist of that part of his argument. We finally settled our dispute when I said, "Roosevelt?" and he answered, "Da, Roosevelt, grote president!" and pounded his fist on his heart.

"...Unless, of course, she just rips his guts out and disqualifies him as a plausible president. "

Gosh, if its that easy, why didn't she just do that a long time ago?  Any way, if Hillary Clinton, a person who can hardly sneeze without being accused of evil designs, can just rip out Obama's guts and disqualify him as a pluasible president, then McCain will have no trouble doing the same later.  

And who's playing the role of Henry Cabot Lodge over at TNR Central?

The bigger point made by Jonathan R that you ignore is the often illegitimate means of allocating delegates.  Why is a delegate lead so sacrosanct?

Between caucuses and their betrayal of the secret ballot and the district-based method of allocating delegates, it is possible that Obama will have more pledged delegates and Clinton more votes.  Or at the very least that the votes are close.

Isn't that really the most unfair outcome?

The superdelegates should vote their conscious.  First, the people who decided that superdelegates should exist wanted them to vote their conscious.  That’s why they were invented.  Otherwise it would have just been left up to the pledged delegates -- the way it was between 1970 and 1980.  Second, the idea of superdelegates is not a deeply unjust rule.  For one, the current selection process – with caucuses and delegates rather than a pure popular vote -- is somewhat undemocratic.  For example, some people don’t have the physical health to attend caucuses, and the person who wins the most pledged delegates might not win the popular vote.  Also, the existence of superdelegates increases the likelihood that the Democrats will put forth a candidate that would have the best chance of winning the general election and that would be a good president.  

Of course, the DNC should change their nominating rules after this election.  We should have only five to ten different primary dates.  And the person who wins the popular vote should win the nomination.  We should only have primaries, and not caucuses.   This process would be the most democratic.  It would equalize political power more so than any other process than I can think of.  

However, those aren’t the rules now.  And, under the current rules, the delegates should vote their conscious.  What does it mean to vote your conscious?  I can’t address that right now.  

Also, both candidates knew what the rules were going to be going into this election.  And their knowledge of the rules probably affected their strategy.  For example, Clinton has spent time trying to show the superdelegates that they should vote for her.  So, it would be unfair to the candidates to change, or make obsolete, the rules in the middle of the game.  

Moreover, Senator Clinton should try to win under the current rules.  There is good reason to believe that she would be a very good President and the best President over the next four to eight years.  For one, overall she has much better positions on the issues than does Senator McCain, for instance, health care.  And, overall, her policy ideas are at least as good as Senator Obama’s.  Her health care ideas are probably a little better than his.  And her understanding of the health care issue is impressive.  She also has better experience than Senator Obama and more understanding of what is necessary to be a good President in the US now.  I also think that, over the course of a long campaign, she would have a better chance of winning the Presidency than Obama would.  She is more proven in this context, partly because of playing such a prominent role in her husband’s campaigns for governor and president.  And, partly because she is more focused on the issues and on solving problems, I see her performing better over the course of a long campaign.    

Yeah, these are all proxies of legitimacy, nothing's perfect. Pledged delegates are a good indicator, but not perfect; popular vote count is a good indicator, but not perfect, etc...

The path I see to Obama victory:

Win Pennsylvania or...

Lose Pennsylvania and win either FLA or MI in a re-vote.

The path I see to an HRC victory:

Win Pennsylvania, FLA and MI.

If either of the above happens, I see the Super Ds swinging to nominate that candidate.

Chait's wrong, HRC's path to victory is clear and possible (although personally, I hope she fails).

"Of course, the DNC should change their nominating rules after this election.  We should have only five to ten different primary dates.  And the person who wins the popular vote should win the nomination.  We should only have primaries, and not caucuses."

Funny, those new rules seem to benefit the candidate with the highest initial name recognition, most institutional support, and most initial cash.

Wasn't it neato to see Obama (and even Edwards) having a snowball's chance?

Personally, I like this current process, we should just rotate other states to be 'early voters' a lot more often.

Mmathog wrote: “Funny, those new rules seem to benefit the candidate with the highest initial name recognition, most institutional support, and most initial cash.”

What is your point?  The proposal I outlined is the most democratic.  One person, one vote.  No person with more than one vote.  And if you have five to ten primaries, it will enable the candidates to get vetted and to make it so that lesser known candidates get have a chance.  And I wouldn’t object more primary dates.  But the key idea is: The winner of the popular vote should be the nominee.  

For the sake of argument, let’s say those rules do benefit a candidate with more money.  That is a good reason to have more public financing of political campaign.  Not to make it so that some people’s votes count 500 times more than others, which is probably about what the system is now.  

Mmathog wrote: “Wasn't it neato to see Obama (and even Edwards) having a snowball's chance?”

You think Obama wouldn’t have a chance in the system I outlined?  What reason is there to believe that?  It would be the person with the most votes would win.  He won the first state.  He could have won the first round of primaries in the proposal I outlined.  

But the goal shouldn't be to give lesser known candidates a huge advantage.  For example we could do so by giving the least known candidates a 2 million vote lead.  And that would be ridiculous.  The most important thing should be to give each person that maximum amount of political power compatible with an equal amount of political power for everyone else.  All human beings are capable of making political choices, and we are affected deeply by the law we enact and people we elect to represent us.      

Mmathog wrote: “Personally, I like this current process…”

Better than the process I outlined?  Why?  

Mmathog wrote: “we should just rotate other states to be 'early voters' a lot more often.”

I agree that we should alternate with parts of the country vote first.  

I could probably get on board for rotating regional primaries, because it does sound pretty fair. But no, I don't actually think Obama would've gained traction in this system. For the sake of argument, let's say the 'midwestern regional primary' went first with say, 5 states voting (including Iowa). I think HRC would've kicked his butt, she would've 'won the region' and 'had momentum.'

The thing is, there's no perfect system, there never will be, it's arrow's impossibility theorem, but yes, we should always strive for improvements.

Yep, David, and we probably wouldn't have had the first Clinton presidency.

Mmathog wrote: “Funny, those new rules seem to benefit the candidate with the highest initial name recognition, most institutional support, and most initial cash.”

It is not unreasonable to say that, for the time being, we should have one smallish state go first.  And the state that goes first should alternate from one year to the next.  I’m not sure I agree with the idea that we should have one state go first, but I’m at least open to the idea.  As you suggest, one possible advantage of such an approach is that it would give lesser known candidates a chance to win.  And perhaps it wouldn’t be hard to do so in a way that undermines democracy.  For example, if the winner of the popular vote is the nominee, then perhaps having a smallish state vote first wouldn’t be undemocratic.  But my most important point is that, after this election, the DNC should change the rules so that the person who wins the popular vote is the person who is the nominee.  And, after this election, we should not have superdelegates.  

The next best scenario would be to say that the person who wins the most delegates is the nominee, and to end the existence of superdelegates.  But this is still less good than having the winner of the popular vote be the nominee, because it is possible that a person could win the most delegate and not win the popular vote.  That would make it so that some people’s votes count a lot more than others.  This is less fair, since we are all human.    

If we were to adopt the kind of system that I propose (in which the winner of the popular vote is the nominee), I don’t know what we should do with Puerto Rico.  My sense is that they should no longer be able to vote anymore for the Democratic nominee, since they are not a state.    

david, it is conscience, not conscious. I don't want to be picky, but I am an English teacher and such things drive me nuts.

I just find these arguments, after the election is done, to be rearranged to suit the writers preferred candidate.

Hog, I agree mostly with your assessment of the path for Hillary, however you are still ignoring all of the other contests, if Obama wins Miss. and North Carolina but big margins, he will more than offset Pa. I can't see her winning Michigan (hell, even Jesse won Michigan) and symbolically, that will take away Florida (which loss would be expected). But if she wins these states, and North Carolina, than she would also likely win a bunch of others as well, and momentum would be on her side. But if it is 50 50 the rest of the way, (he winning North Carolin and Michigan, her Pa. and Florida) than Hillary's chances are much weaker than his.

MMathog wrote: “But no, I don't actually think Obama would've gained traction in this system. For the sake of argument, let's say the 'midwestern regional primary' went first with say, 5 states voting (including Iowa). I think HRC would've kicked his butt, she would've 'won the region' and 'had momentum.'”

Again, I would be open to having one small state go first, especially if that state were to rotate.  But that is not my main point: My main point is that, after this election, the DNC should change the rules so that the person who wins the popular vote is the nominee.  And it is very important to have public financing of primaries, so that a person’s wealth and fund-raising ability doesn’t give a person a huge advantage in terms of winning.  I have some ideas for public financing, but this isn’t the place to get into those.

And maybe if the nominee is decided by the popular vote, being a lesser known would be a disadvantage in terms of winning the nomination.  That might be a weakness of my plan.  But that can be offset to some extent by public financing of the democratic primary.  Moreover, when selecting a process for choosing representative, the most important criterion should be to be as democratic as possible.  And my proposal would be much more democratic than the current model.  Each person’s vote would count as one, and no person’s vote would count as more than one.  And the person with the most votes would be the nominee.  

MMathog wrote: “The thing is, there's no perfect system, there never will be, it's arrow's impossibility theorem, but yes, we should always strive for improvements.”

Perhaps there is no perfect system.  But some systems are much better than others.    

Anonevent wrote: “Yep, David, and we probably wouldn't have had the first Clinton presidency.”

Maybe you are right.  But sometimes the model that we ought to choose for selecting candidates will result in outcomes that are disappointing.  For example, France has a good model for the general election.  And this time it resulted in Sarkozy defeating Royalle.  I favored Royalle.  The most important criterion should not be to get the best candidate every time.  The most important consideration should be: Which process is the most Democratic?  Which process provides the greatest degree of equality of political power?  For example, it would be possible to have a process where philosopher-kings choose the leaders.  And it would be logically possible that this always resulted in the best possible leader chosen.  This method would still be much less good than a true democracy.    

If this makes it all the way to the Convention, God help us. Nothing but disaster can result from an ugly convention fight, especially if she swings superdelegates into her camp without the popular vote (a discussion of elected delegates is irrelevant since she has already lost). You're talking about a crippling blow to the party, with large numbers of voters - not the least being black voters - staying at home and crippling democrats down the line. I doubt it happens. I'm betting he wins it before then and she gets drummed out of the contest. Here's hoping.

Blackton wrote: “I just find these arguments, after the election is done, to be rearranged to suit the writers preferred candidate.”

What specific argument are you referring to?  For the sake of argument, let’s say you are right that "these argument" are "arranged to suite the writer's preferred candidate."  You may have committed that ad hominem fallacy.  A person intention for making a claim may be self-interest, and the claim still be one that one is justified in believing to be true.  For example, maybe Darwin came up with evolution partly because he wanted to be rich and famous.  I’m still quite sure that some of my ancestors are fish.  

Here is a pretty good discussion on the ad hominem fallacy from Irving Copi’s book Logic and Critical Thinking:

"It is very common in rough-and-tumble argument to disparage the character of the opponents, to deny their intelligence or reasonableness, to question their integrity, and so on. But the personal character of the individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what the person says, or the correctness or incorrectness of that person's argument. To contend that proposals are bad or assertions false because they are proposed or asserted by ‘radicals’ (of the left of right) is a typical example of the fallacy ad hominem, abusive.

"Abusive premises are irrelevant -- but they sometimes persuade by the psychological process of transference. Where an attitude of disapproval toward a person can be evoked, the field of emotional disapproval may so extend as to include disagreement with the assertions that person makes.

"There are many variations in the patterns of the ad hominem abuse, of course. Sometimes the opponent is abused for being of a certain persuasion – an atheist or communist. Sometimes a conclusion is condemned simply because it is shared by persons who are believed to be vicious or of bad character. Many contend that Socrates, at his famous trial in Athens, was found guilty of impiety partly because of his close association with persons widely known to have been disloyal to the state, and rapacious in conduct. ‘Guilt by association’ was repeatedly suggested in the United States during the 1950s, by the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, when misconduct was alleged in part because of the support given by those accused to political causes (e.g., civil liberties, and racial equality) supported by the Communist Party. Because argument ad hominem, abusive commonly takes the form of attacking the source or the genesis of the opposing position – which is not relevant to its truth, of course – it is sometimes called ‘the Genetic Fallacy.’

“...A legendary example of the abusive variety of the ad hominem also arose in a courtroom, in Britain. There the practice of law has long been divided between solicitors, who prepare the case for trial, and barristers, who argue or ‘plead’ cases in court. Ordinarily, their cooperation is admirable, but sometimes it leaves much to be desired. On one such occasion, the barrister ignored the case completely until the day it was to be presented at court, depending upon the solicitor to investigate the defendant’s case and prepare the brief. Arriving at court just moment before the trial was to begin, he was handed his brief by the solicitor. Surprised at its thinness, he glanced inside to find written: ‘No case; abuse the plaintiff’s attorney!’”

Jonathan Chait-

In your very fine article elsewhere at TNR***, "Go Already," you write: "Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves. . .kneecap[ing her opponent]. . .(meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness). . ."

I would argue that HRC's ruthlessness is not exactly Nixonian (her campaign hasn't, as far as we know, engineered a break-in of her opponent's offices), but Rovian, in that her campaign has repeatedly employed the kind of big-lie smear tactics we have seen the Bushies employ over the past seven or eight years, smears that have no basis whatsoever in reality, smears that are more apt descriptions of the candidate (Hillary, Bush) whose campaign has manufactured them, smears that--in their overheated language, their ad hominem attacks, their hyperventilating irrationality--seem to have originated with a drunk, or a psychopath, or the Mad Hatter's tea party.

In short, listening to Hillary or one of her surrogates--Ickes or Wolfson or Mark Penn--is like accidentally tuning into a segment on the Fox News Channel.

_____________________________________________________________________________

***By the way, I'm posting this response to your article here on this thread at the Plank because TNR's new Talkback format is about as dysfunctional as the Democratic presidential nominating process.

MPatrickHendri wrote: “If this makes it all the way to the Convention, God help us. Nothing but disaster can result from an ugly convention fight, especially if she swings superdelegates into her camp without the popular vote (a discussion of elected delegates is irrelevant since she has already lost). You're talking about a crippling blow to the party, with large numbers of voters - not the least being black voters - staying at home and crippling democrats down the line. I doubt it happens. I'm betting he wins it before then and she gets drummed out of the contest. Here's hoping.”

I disagree that if this campaign goes to the convention, it will be “a crippling blow to the party.”  At least that prediction is no more plausible than not.  First, this drawn out campaign is putting the Democrats on the front page.  They are the lead story.  This is taking attention away from Senator McCain and the Republicans.  And the campaign is putting focus on their ideas and proposals, which is exposing the US public to a good and just way of trying to resolve the problems that we face.  Also, the process is improving the candidates, both in terms of their ability to discuss and argue policy, as well as their ability to win a general election campaign in the US in 2008.  In addition, there have been other times in the history of the country when the campaign went all the way to the convention, and it didn’t hurt the party involved.  There have even been times when it was a tough convention debate that it didn't hurt the party involved.  The election of Abraham Lincoln comes to mind.  And he did a good job in incredibly difficult circumstances.  

Also, the person who wins can be gracious, and the person who gets second can urge his or her supporters to support the winner.  Also, if Clinton wins the nomination, it would be a good idea for her to choose Senator Obama to be her running-mate.  He would be a very good Vice President and President over the next four to eight years.  And choosing him would give inspiration to a lot of people.  

However, as you suggest, it is important that this campaign does not result in, as you say, “an ugly convention fight.”  In other words, you can have a vigorous campaign without it getting ugly.  The candidates should focus on the issues, on policy ideas and on the statements that the candidates make.  They should try to avoid making irrelevant personal criticisms of the candidates, for example, Samantha Power shouldn’t have called Hillary Clinton a monster.  That doesn’t mean that the candidates shouldn’t argue strenuously.  They should.  But they can do so without being uncivil.  

In random moments I wonder how many people who don't follow baseball very much actually think the Boston Red Sox won the 1975 World Series.  After all, what's the one image or audio clip one ever sees or hears from that epic?  Carlton Fisk's highly dramatic game-ending homer from Game Six.  People who weren't even alive in 1975 probably have the image of Fisk waving the ball fair permanently burned into their brains as a result of that video being replayed so many times over the past thirty-odd years.  The Reds, well, they had to be content with merely winning Game Seven and getting the World Series trophy.  

I am beginning to wonder if this kind of misperspective is going to decide the Democratic nomination in the end.  Clinton seems to want to be declared the winner for winning Game Six, if one can stomach the Texas and Ohio primaries being compared to one of the more thrilling sports contests of the past few decades (although the 1991 Series as a whole was much more exciting IMHO).  Never mind that Obama, barring a serious collapse, is virtually bound to have won more "games" than Clinton in the series (primaries/caucuses, delegates, probably popular votes) however you slice it.  The Clintonistas, for all practical purposes, would like the Series to be declared over now.  (No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to fit with how events are unfolding.)

David,

If you think a candidate wins the popular vote and the majority of pledged delegates and still loses (the scenario I outlined) wouldn't result in an ugly convention than you are kidding yourself. And if a small percentage of black voters stay at home, not to mention partisan Dems like me that think HRC would be a terrible President, it's a blowout of epic proportions that will have consequences for the party. But this isn't about the party, and this isn't what's good for the country, this is about her sense of entitlement.

This is a person that voted to invade and occupy Iraq, despite the fact she knew better. HRC has since claimed it was because she didn't think the president would use the authorization to use force to, ugh, use force. Give me a break, she's too smart for that. She went along with Bush because she thought was in her political best interest - because she wanted to cover her right flank in the general election.

What could be more cynical than that?

cspencef, I'm glad it's not only me who's become mentally obsessed with finding the perfect baseball analogy for the nomination contest. I think you nailed it. I just want to shout, "Enough spring training; start the regular season already." I'd say the same thing to baseball, too.

But more importantly, where would you rate 1975 compared to 1991, 2001, and 1924 on the list of Greatest World Series Ever?

CSpencef wrote: “I am beginning to wonder if this kind of misperspective is going to decide the Democratic nomination in the end.  Clinton seems to want to be declared the winner for winning Game Six, if one can stomach the Texas and Ohio primaries being compared to one of the more thrilling sports contests of the past few decades (although the 1991 Series as a whole was much more exciting IMHO).”

It’s not true that Clinton “seems to want to be declared the winner for winning Game Six.”  She wants the campaign to continue.  And she could win.  Probably neither of them will have 2,025 delegates after the last primary and before the convention.  So maybe the campaign will go to the convention, and it will be a brokered convention.  That doesn’t remotely suggest that Clinton wants to be "declared" the winner now or ever.  She wants to keep going until someone wins.  And it could be her.  She could win the nomination pursuant to the DNC rules that were chosen by the DNA prior to this campaign.  Both campaigns knew the rules before they started.  And probably their knowledge affected some of their decisions.  So, it is important not to change the rules in the middle of the process.  Moreover, the current rules are ridiculously unjust.  It is not as if a group of philosopher-kings decides on the nominee.  We have pledged delegates, which are assigned proportionally.  So they are democratic.  And the superdelegates include members of Congress.  They are elected by the people.  And this is one of their jobs.  They also include partly leaders.  And when they take the job they do so with the understanding that they are supposed to exercise their judgment to select a good nominee who can be a good president.

Although the rules for selecting a nominee should be changed after this election, the rules should not be changed now.  The candidates have both been aware of the current rules from the beginning.  Similarly, the Electoral College should be abolished, and we should decide the president through a popular vote.  But it would have been wrong from Al Gore to take the presidency in 2000, even though he won the popular vote.    

And Clinton should keep going.  She could win, and she would be a good President.  Also, her going on enables her to get out good ideas and argue for good policies.  This could help improve society.

Joseph Cuomo wrote: “I would argue that HRC's ruthlessness is not exactly Nixonian (her campaign hasn't, as far as we know, engineered a break-in of her opponent's offices), but Rovian, in that her campaign has repeatedly employed the kind of big-lie smear tactics we have seen the Bushies employ over the past seven or eight years, smears that have no basis whatsoever in reality, smears that are more apt descriptions of the candidate (Hillary, Bush) whose campaign has manufactured them, smears that--in their overheated language, their ad hominem attacks, their hyperventilating irrationality--seem to have originated with a drunk, or a psychopath, or the Mad Hatter's tea party.”

What “big-lies” do you have in mind?   And what “smears” do you have in mind?  

I wrote: "Moreover, the current rules are ridiculously unjust."

I meant the rules are NOT ridiculously unjust.  However, the current rules are not ideal.  I hope we can change them soon and make the process more democratic.  But the rules shouldn't be changed now, in the middle of the game.  

Daivd52194-

You write: "What 'big-lies' do you have in mind [lies that Hillary's campaign has floated about Obama]?   And what 'smears' do you have in mind?"

David52149, the smears and the lies coming from the Clintonistas are almost too numerous to name. But just for starters:

1. Clinton's campaign only just yesterday compared Obama to Ken Starr. (From a Clinton campaign press release: "Imitating Ken Starr is not the way to win the Democratic nomination.")

2. Clinton's campaign (again only yesterday, and in the same press release) accused Obama of going negative (when, of course, it is she who has gone negative), and also claimed that BHO has not been able to put forward a positive agenda (when this is the core of what the Obama campaign has done). From that same Clinton press release yesterday: "Sen. Obama’s decision to go explicitly negative suggests that he is unable to make an affirmative case for his candidacy beyond ad hominem attacks."

3. The Clinton campaign released a photo of BHO dressed in African--or seemingly Muslim--garb to Matt Drudge (Drudge!) in order to reinforce suspicions that in the voting public that Obama may be a Muslim. Then the Clintonistas denied having released the photo, and accused the Obama campaign of releasing it. Then Drudge confirmed that it was indeed Hillary's campaign that had sent him the photo in the first place.

4. Clinton herself crossed a line--especially as a candidate in a Democratic primary--by suggesting that she OR the GOP nominee, John McCain (you know, the guy the Dems are supposed to be trying to defeat), would make a better president that Obama.

5. Clinton and her campaign attacked Obama for what has become known as NAFTA Gate, sending an emissary from his campaign to tell the Canadians that he didn't really mean what he was saying in Ohio with regard to undoing NAFTA--when in actual fact, according to the "Toronto Globe and Mail," it was, to quote Jason Zengerle, ". . .the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie--[who] said that it was the CLINTON CAMPAIGN doing the NAFTA reassuring." (emphasis in the original)

I could go on, David52194, but it's Friday night, and I'm late to meet up with some friends.

But, just briefly, it is beyond comprehension how anyone who reads TNR would not have noticed what big-lies or smears the Clinton campaign has floated about Obama. . .

MPatrickHendri wrote: “If you think a candidate wins the popular vote and the majority of pledged delegates and still loses (the scenario I outlined) wouldn't result in an ugly convention than you are kidding yourself. And if a small percentage of black voters stay at home, not to mention partisan Dems like me that think HRC would be a terrible President, it's a blowout of epic proportions that will have consequences for the party. But this isn't about the party, and this isn't what's good for the country, this is about her sense of entitlement.”

First, this doesn’t need to be an ugly convention.  The candidates are capable of avoiding it.  They have shown in the debates that they can engage the issues in thoughtful, meaningful way.  But even if the campaign does result in an “ugly convention” that doesn’t mean it is going to be, as you said, “a crippling blow to party.”  That is the claim of yours that I was responding to.  

Moreover, even if this campaign could result in, as you say, “an ugly convention fight,” what should Clinton do?  She should stay in.  She shouldn’t drop out.  And she run the best campaign she can.  She could win under the rules that the DNC adopted in 1982.  And both sides knew the rules ahead of time.  

MPatrickHendri wrote: “This is a person that voted to invade and occupy Iraq, despite the fact she knew better. HRC has since claimed it was because she didn't think the president would use the authorization to use force to, ugh, use force. Give me a break, she's too smart for that. She went along with Bush because she thought was in her political best interest - because she wanted to cover her right flank in the general election.”

First, it is speculation on your part that one of her motives in voting for the resolution is that she “wanted to cover her right flank in the general election.”  Also, I agree that it was a bad vote.  But one bad vote is not grounds for thinking that one would be a less good President than the person she is running against.  Nearly everyone makes some bad decisions, and many go on to do a good job in the office or in a higher office.  For example, FDR made a bad decision with the court-packing plan.  But he went on to have a good presidency.  

Joseph Cuomo, thanks for the detailed post.

Joseph wrote: “1. Clinton's campaign only just yesterday compared Obama to Ken Starr. (From a Clinton campaign press release: "Imitating Ken Starr is not the way to win the Democratic nomination.")”

That’s not a lie.  Is it a smear?  I don’t know.  Anyway, the Clinton campaign shouldn’t have said that in the press release.  

Joseph wrote: “2. Clinton's campaign (again only yesterday, and in the same press release) accused Obama of going negative (when, of course, it is she who has gone negative), and also claimed that BHO has not been able to put forward a positive agenda (when this is the core of what the Obama campaign has done). From that same Clinton press release yesterday: "Sen. Obama’s decision to go explicitly negative suggests that he is unable to make an affirmative case for his candidacy beyond ad hominem attacks.”

Is that a lie?  Is it a smear?  I don’t know.  What do you have in mind?  The Clinton campaign said that Obama went negative.  Did he not do so?  I don’t know.  But I agree that they shouldn’t have said that.  It's sort of petty.    

Joseph wrote: “3. The Clinton campaign released a photo of BHO dressed in African--or seemingly Muslim--garb to Matt Drudge (Drudge!) in order to reinforce suspicions that in the voting public that Obama may be a Muslim. Then the Clintonistas denied having released the photo, and accused the Obama campaign of releasing it. Then Drudge confirmed that it was indeed Hillary's campaign that had sent him the photo in the first place.”

Do you have evidence that the Clinton campaign released the photo?  Do you have a link?  In the debate, she said she had no knowledge that it was a member of her campaign that released it.  If she did, she would fire the person.

“4. Clinton herself crossed a line--especially as a candidate in a Democratic primary--by suggesting that she OR the GOP nominee, John McCain (you know, the guy the Dems are supposed to be trying to defeat), would make a better president that Obama.”

She never said that McCain would make a better president than Obama or anything remotely similar.  Here is what she said: “I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”  

She said that she can demonstrate that she can cross that commander-in-chief threshold.  And that McCain can.  And that it is less clear about Obama.  I agree that she could have worded those comments better than she did.  She should have said that Obama would be disadvantaged against McCain in a general election, because of McCain’s experience on foreign affairs versus Obama’s.  I worry about that.  

But she was a little vague with those comments.  And one could reasonably interpret her as suggesting that McCain has crossed a threshold that Obama has not.  That suggests that she is saying that McCain is ready to be Commander in Chief, whereas Obama is not.  I’m uneasy about some of the comments Obama has made about foreign affairs.  I don’t like him referring to other countries as “our enemies.”  And I’m very uneasy about what he said about wanting to take military action against alleged terrorists in Pakistan, especially if it is against the will of Pakistan.  The policy could result in more suicide bombers, for example.  However, I would much rather have Obama in charge of foreign policy than McCain.  For one, Obama voted against the invasion of Iraq, and McCain voted for it and suggested that we could be there for 100 years.  This suggests that Obama has a stronger commitment than McCain to negotiation and, non-violence and human rights.  Also, in some of his comments, Obama has shown a commitment to diplomacy and to helping the less fortunate.  For example, his policy toward Cuba -- he seems to favor relaxing the embargo -- is the best of all the candidates.  

Nevertheless, Clinton would be justified in saying that Obama’s lack of experience relative to McCain would be a problem in terms of his winning the general election.  It probably would be a problem.  And she should also mention her experience on foreign policy, for example, talk about the speech she gave in China.  

Joseph wrote: “5. Clinton and her campaign attacked Obama for what has become known as NAFTA Gate, sending an emissary from his campaign to tell the Canadians that he didn't really mean what he was saying in Ohio with regard to undoing NAFTA--when in actual fact, according to the "Toronto Globe and Mail," it was, to quote Jason Zengerle, ". . .the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie--[who] said that it was the CLINTON CAMPAIGN doing the NAFTA reassuring." (emphasis in the original)”

I don’t know the details with this.  I’ll look into it more.  If you have any links, that would be helpful.

A bad vote is excusable, that vote was not. She knew what Bush's intentions were. Hell, I knew and I'm as dumb as a bag of bricks. Yes, speculation, but I'd bet my left testical on it. And I can never vote for someone that would vote to take the nation to war for poltical calculations. For political ambitions.

Putting that aside, I just think she would be a bad president. For the first time in my life, I would vote for a Republican. McCain would be a centrist president and he's a decent person. That's more than I can say for her.

First, I wrote: “For one, Obama voted against the invasion of Iraq, and McCain voted for it and suggested that we could be there for 100 years.”

Obviously, Obama didn’t vote against the invasion of Iraq.  He wasn’t in the Senate at the time.  But he came out in opposition to the invasion.  And that’s great.  

However, on one occasion, he made a statement about the invasion of Iraq that was somewhat ambiguous in terms of how he would have voted.  Specifically, he said: ''But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports.  What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''  The “I don’t know line” is a little bit of a hedge.  Maybe he is suggesting that, if he had been privy to the Senate intelligence reports, he might have taken a different position than the one he took at the time.  Nevertheless, he deserves full credit for coming out against the invasion and full credit for saying that the cast for invasion had not been made.  

MPatrickHendri wrote: “A bad vote is excusable, that vote was not.”

The vote is excusable.  We all make mistakes.  And no matter what she did, Bush probably was going to order that invasion.  In other words, if she would have voted against the resolution, it wouldn’t have deterred him.  However, it was a disappointing vote.      

Moreover, whether it is excusable should not be important in terms of whom you support for the Democratic primary.  Because we can’t change the past.  We can only change the future.  And I think Clinton would be a very good president.

Admittedly, her vote should be relevant in terms of whom one should support, because past behavior is one of the best indications one has available in terms of how one will act in the future.  However, she now recognizes that she should have voted differently.  I wish she would just say: Even with the identical information I had at the time, I should have voted differently.  But in determining who would be the best president, you should assess the candidate’s whole body of work rather than just one vote.  Many good leaders have made some bad decisions.  For example, FDR had the internment camps for Japanese Americans.  

If the issue of whether a person favored in the invasion of Iraq should be the most important criterion in terms of whom you support for the nomination, then you should support Ron Paul for President over Hillary Clinton.  And obviously you shouldn’t vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton.  So obviously whether the person favored the invasion of Iraq shouldn’t be the most important consideration for you to weigh in terms of who you should support for President.    

“She knew what Bush's intentions were.”

She did not.  She thought Bush was going to have the weapons inspectors go in to try to find out what Saddam Hussein and did not have.  She didn’t know that Bush would order the invasion even if Saddam let the weapons inspectors in, which she did.

I wrote: "Moreover, whether it is excusable should not be important in terms of whom you support for the Democratic primary."

That's wrong.  The candidates' statements and positions on the invasion of Iraq that they offered at the time of the invasion should be important in terms of whom one should support,  I mention why in my previous post.

However, the candidates' position on the invasion of Iraq should not be HUGELY important in terms of who one should support.  And it clearly should not be the only consideration that one weighs when deciding which candidate to support.  People can learn from their mistakes.    

Joseph Cuomo wrote: “5. Clinton and her campaign attacked Obama for what has become known as NAFTA Gate, sending an emissary from his campaign to tell the Canadians that he didn't really mean what he was saying in Ohio with regard to undoing NAFTA--when in actual fact, according to the "Toronto Globe and Mail," it was, to quote Jason Zengerle, ". . .the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie--[who] said that it was the CLINTON CAMPAIGN doing the NAFTA reassuring." (emphasis in the original)”

I’ll try to look into this more, and I don’t know a lot about it.  But here is a statement from Clinton spokesman Phil Singer: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from.”

Here is a link:

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments

"David52194 said:   “I would argue that HRC's ruthlessness is not exactly Nixonian (her campaign hasn't, as far as we know, engineered a break-in of her opponent's offices),"  

Gotta agree with you there:  Nobody died in the Watergate break-in, unlike some friends of Hill and Bill in the 1990s.  Remember: at one point Bill was referred to in the press as "The Mourner In Chief."  

The depth of her stupid stonewalling a long time ago easily surpassed the stonewalling that RMN employed during Watergate.  That tradition of refusing to reveal facts will hurt her in November.  

Just look at her current refusal to expalin how she and Bill became multimillionaires in the last few years (just where the heck did all that money come from?), or why she won't release her tax returns (which would show where all taht money came from), and why she and Bill refuse to give access to his presidential papers regarding her Health Care Reform activities.  

Some voters may just start to think that when you are hiding what should be public informatiion, then maybe you've got something to hide!  

It ought to be noted that Teddy Roosevelt challenged a sitting president of his own party without destroying the Republicans.  And Ronald Reagan did the same, leading, actually, the the immense resurgence of the Republican party.

It should also be remembered, that until recent years, party conventions were where the presidential nominees were always chosen.  And except when the convention was extraordinarily contentious-- as in Chicago 1968-- the vigorous, even bitter competitions, did not kill either party.

In recent years, the networks had started to declare that the party conventions were obsolete non-events and had been threatening not to bother covering them.

It may actually be healthy for party Democracy for the conventions to take on their decisive roles once again.

Of course, I'm glad all this democracy is happening to the Democrats and not the GOP.

Good luck, fellas.

re the Nixon comparison, the neurosies of Hillary and Dickie may indeed be somewhat comparable.  As well as their frequent appearance of being, as so often noted of both, uncomfortable in their own skins.

However, the career of Nixon, accepting the spectacular end of his presidency, was not nearly as scandal plagued as the Clintons'.

He had the supposed "slush fund" of '52, out of which he talked himself with the Chequers Speech.  You've got to wait twenty one years until the coverup of the Watergate Break-in (not the break-in itself for which he is not blamed) to come up with another one.  At least that I can remember.

Anyone got anymore Nixon scandals?  And naughty campaign attacks on his rivals don't count.  Nor self-pitying fake exits from public life ("Won't have Nixon to kick around anymore.")  

To the latter kind of pronouncement, Hillary has show some tendencies.  several times.  ("Vast Right Wing conspiracy."  "Why do you always ask me the questions first?"  "It's hard.")

One point I don't see being argued by either Jonathon:

Since the Democratic party is the party that represents the national interest versus the interest of half the wealthy elites and a bunch of ignorant saps, the Superdelegates really should consider the national interest not just the party interest.  Otherwise they're no better than Republicans.

And this is why they better think about how it would look if the will of the people appears to have been thwarted by a small group of elitists before the general election even started.  Who wrote the article about 1912?  That made some sense.

I'm still for Gore.

Jonathan, you write that since Hillary almost certainly can't catch up with Obama in delegates, she can't win the nomination, "...Unless, of course, she just rips his guts out and disqualifies him as a plausible president."

'splain this.  If Obama doesn't have anything embarrassing to be ripped out and exposed, what's she going to do, just make stuff up?

The outlines of Obama's problems are already starting to emerge.  Questioable associations in Chicago from certain possibly corrupt kingpins to unrepentant terrorists whose help he actively sought.  The rather bitter opinions of his wife about the nation, which make you wonder if Obama harbors some of the same.  

None of the above are life-threatening yet.  And Truman rode out his Pendergast Machine past.  But, there are still eight months to go until November.  And nearly six until Denver.  We shall see if more or worse shakes out.

fwslusser, do you really and truly believe that the Democratic Party is really "of the people"?

In Roman times, certain of the patrician senators played to the proles.  When they won office, they threw them bread and circuses.

The patrician Democrats of our own time do the very same thing.  Only instead of bread and circuses, they promise the least fortunate free everything.  And deliver a certain portion of goodies to buy them off for the next election.  Being careful not to impinge the interests of their very deep pocketed backers on Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc.

You are buying a real cartoon, fwslusser, if you believe the Democrats care too very much about "the people".

newdex, missed your post before I did mine.  But, looks like we made parallel points, if not the same exactly, about the "rip his guts out" thing.

mmathog, your "path to victory" analysis for each candidate looks spot on to me.

David52194, re your observation that a long campaign and a convention keeps the Democrats as the focus of the news for months and months and is thus good, not bad, for them.

Karl Rove made the same point this evening on Fox where he is now a regular, and always interesting, contributor.

He may be the bogey man the Democrats have been saying all these years.  But as a talking head, he is more level headed, reasonable, and smart than most.  And he never foams at the mouth like the Begala's, O'Donnel's and that bullet head Cajun guy.

This debate as to whether Clinton should at this point fold her tent, and the endless recitations about the undemocratic nature of various elements of the candidate selection process overlook a key point: the whole purpose of the primary/caucus season is for the PARTY to select a candidate to run in the real election.  A political party is a voluntary association who come together to advance their common interests.  There is an implied commitment in joining a party, that you work to advance those common interests.

Why does this matter?  First, if either Clinton or Obama are loyal Democrats, then the first and most important calculation they should be making, is whether their staying in or dropping out of the race advances the party's chances of winning the White House and a legislative majority.  This is what makes negative campaigning  wrong in the primaries, regardless of what you think about it in the general election: unless you can carry a very creative argument about why your attacks improve your opponent's odds in the general election, should they be the candidate, then by construction, direct ad hominem attacks on a primary opponent violates the attacking candidate's obligation to their party.  This point is especially relevant this year, because there is no longer any contest for the policy heart of the Democratic party - these two candidates agree, modulo some relatively minor details, on what the agenda of the next national government should be.

Because this is most importantly an internal party matter, then the whole debate about the process is out of place.  The party made the rules, and the candidates are obligated to follow those rules.  That specifically means honoring individual states' primary vs caucus choices, and the ruling that Florida and Michigan don't count.

So, should Clinton drop out?  Since, as I say, she and Obama agree for the most part on the policy heart of the party platform, the question to be answered is who between them offers the best chance for the party to carry those policies to fruition against the Republicans.  All she needs to do to convince me that she deserves to stay in to the end, is make a convincing case that she could still win, and that she can do it without damaging the party and its chances against McCain, and a slew of Senate and House Republicans.

I therefore don't think she should drop out: she should campaign for her own leadership narrative, without attacking Obama, and then let the votes fall where they may.  If she does that and wins, then I'll donate the maximum allowed to her campaign and work for her election in the fall.  If she proves, as she's been trying to for weeks, that she doesn't really care about the party, but only about her own shot at history, then she's got a hell of an uphill battle to get my support.  In the end, I'll probably vote for her, but without a shred of enthusiasm.

And, this matters a lot to Democrats and the party.  I personally know quite a few Republicans who prefer Obama over McCain; zero who prefer Clinton over McCain.  Conversely, I know plenty of Democrats who will vote for McCain over Clinton; very few who will abandon Obama for McCain.  She has essentially zero chance with the independents I know.  Now, my personal circle is not dispositive, because it clearly has very large sampling error, but I take it as indicative, and it tracks what more professional polls say.

So, yeah, hang in their Hillary Rodham Clinton, but do it with some class.  You are not the unique savior the country needs in 2008.  Neither is Obama.  Sell your leadership skills and vision, and endorse the results, whatever they may be.  Expect him to do the same.

Oh, if it makes it to the convention, it will most certainly be ugly.  Just look at how emotionally distraught people are now.  I do think Clinton and Obama are capable of carrying forward with dignity.  I have no doubt whatsoever that the people in both camps who truly believe that God is on the side of their candidate will go absolutely ga-ga over every single perceived slight to their chosen one.

There could literally be rioting in the streets.  People (especially "Progressives") really are that combustible - because just like George W, they KNOW they are right.

ChanRobt: I never said "of the people."  However, I'd rather have them throw me a circus then take it from me while they enjoy their orgies.  And I definitely don't want them taking my bread and telling me I need to work harder.  

"In your heart, you know (s)he's right!"  AuH2O '64.

We're older now. In our hearts, we know they're all full of shit. Vote Obama. At least he's entertaining.

mmathog,

I think you are going to owe me the dollar back on the MI and FL revote.  Hillary ain't pushing for it and now it seems like it won't happen for that reason.

Meanwhile, IF Obama arrives at the convention with more popular votes and more delegates, as seems most likely, and is not nominated, the Democratic party is absolutely certain to lose the general election.  Hillary is already weaker than McCain with independents so her only hope is a totally mobilized Democratic party (not to mention that the Republicans despise her and would likely turn out in droves).  The consequences of a nomination that overrules both the popular vote and the delegate count would be a disaffected and dispirited party.  Would it be within the rules?  Certainly.  But a disaster none the less.

If Hillary has more popular votes and the delegate is narrow, she might pull it off without a meltdown.  That depends on how Obama takes it publicly, which is a good reason for Hillary not to get all Riovian except that she doesn't really care because, as Jonathan said convincingly, kneecapping Obama is her only way forward.  She figures she'll get to the Show if she can and worry about that later.  And trust me, Hillary Clinton doesn't give a crap about the Democratic party, never has.  She is all about Hillary.  So those appeals to her better nature are a waste of time.

Obama needs to find the right tone and voice to hit back without blowing his positive politics shtick.  It can be done.  He has to ridicule her attacks with a big smile and reminders of how she is losing, becoming desperate, intemperate, and silly.  He needs to pick a couple of issues and go after her.  One, which he started on a bit but not firmly enough, is to challenge her "tested and vetted" by repeating over and over again her refusal to release her tax returns and her papers.  "How can she tell us she is vetted when she keeps her papers hidden?  How can she tell us that she has withstood Republican pressures when none of us knows what is in those papers and what the Republicans will do with it?  I don't have thousands of hidden papers.  Senator Clinton cannot simply ask us to take it on faith that there is no reason for concern about what she won't tell us."  Not nasty, lots of innuendo, right at the heart of her case for herself.  The second thing he should go after VERRRRRY hard is the disaster of her health care plan.  "Let us recall the disaster that befell the party when Senator Clinton was put in charge of the health care agenda.  Not only did we not get any health care plan, the Democratic party lost the House of Representatives for the firs time in 40 years, and only regained it two years ago.  Senator Clinton says she has learned from her mistakes [not this puts the words Clinton and mistakes in her mouth out of which they have come].  But she is already making the same mistakes with a proposal for a universal mandate that is sure to meet furious Republican resistance and lead to the same outcome in 1994.  We need to ask Senator Clinton just how she proposes to push through her plan without losing the House of Representatives again."  [Note to Krugman -- who cares if this makes it harder for him to govern.  To govern, you have to win.  Write a few columns telling Hilllary to pick herself up out of the gutter and this sort of thing will not be necessary.]  If I were Obama, I would also ridicule her "25 generals support me' with a big grin.  "You know, it is one thing not to have the experience of being Commander in Chief.  It is quite another thing not to have the experience and still think that you do.  Senator Clinton seems to believe that lining up a bunch of admirals [note, people think admirals are funny, not generals] to say they support you is the same thing as experience.  It isn't.  They have that experience, not Senator Clinton.  If I got 25 Hall of Fame baseball players to support me, that wouldn't mean that I can play baseball."

I an complete agreement with Robert Powell on all points.  Hillary isn't really even a Democrat.

J.Cuomo (and David52914):

Jumping into this late, but I have to respond to Cuomo's list of Hillary's "big lies" at March 7, 11:48.  Regarding points 1 and 2 (Ken Starr and "going negative", these may be hyperbolic but they sure as heck aren't "Big Lies."  I'm more interested in points 3 and 5, though, because these involve facts more than judgment calls and I think you've got them entirely wrong.  

First, the Drudge photo thing: 1) Drudge's confirmation shouldn't count for beans, but at any rate, 2) Drudge has never confirmed that he was "sent" an email by the Clinton campaign, only that he "obtained" an email that originated from somebody in the Clinton campaign.  There is a big difference, which I'm sure you would see clearly if it was a nasty photo "obtained" from a member of the Obama campaign that we were talking about.  As far as accusing Obama of releasing the photo, I hadn't heard that one, but the thought certainly crossed my mind.  The Obama campaign certainly didn't waste time denouncing Hillary in extreme terms even while admitting they had no idea whether or not she actually had anything to do with it.  

"NAFTAgate": To begin with, the assertion that Ian Brodie's original statement was about Clinton is an allegation made by unnamed witnesses, while Brodie himself claims that he doesn't remember referring to either candidate by name.  OK, he might be lying.  But the journalist who was then assigned to investigate the matter named Obama in his report.  I'd love to know more about his investigation but I haven't seen any explanations.  You could assume that the Clinton campaign held his children hostage . . . or you could assume that that's the conclusion his investigation came to.  At any rate, we now know that one of Obama's advisor's absolutely did meet with the Canadian consul regarding NAFTA, even if, as the advisor insists, the nature of his comments have been misrepresented.  But this misrepresentation was done by the Canadian government, in a memo to 150 Canadian officials - NOT by Hillary.  Lastly, as David points out, Hillary has flatly denied having a similar meeting.  Where's the big lie here?

As for point #4, I agree that praising McCain in this way sucks.  But of your list of 5 big lies you have 3 statements that are simply opinions you disagree with, not lies at all, and 2 unsubstantiated accusations.  Looks like you're going to have to go on further if you want to make a case.  

Finally, I can't resist commenting on your last sentence:

"But, just briefly, it is beyond comprehension how anyone who reads TNR would not have noticed what big-lies or smears the Clinton campaign has floated about Obama. . ."

That's hysterical and absolutely true.  Just like its beyond comprehension that anyone who watches FOX news would not have noticed what pansy-assed, whining, America-hating, terrorist-loving losers we Democrats are.  

David52194-

I've tried to post a response to you twice already, once late last night, and once earlier this morning (Saturday morning), but both times, the new format here at TNR Talkback Nation has apparently swallowed my posts, and they never appeared on this thread.

So I am trying one more time (below) to post a reply to you. If, for some inexplicable reason, the earlier posts finally do materialize as well, then I apologize for repeating myself. But things here at TNR's dsyfunctionally digital world are indeed a bit perplexing.

David52194-

I've now tried to post a response to you THREE SEPARATE TIMES, but the new format here at Talkback has swallowed all three posts, and in the interim, newdex has posted his own comments on the subject.

I'm going to try to post my response once more (below), but this time without all of the links (I'll try to post those separately), in the off chance that maybe, just maybe this is the digital reason that TNR's new format has swallowed all of my previous posts.

David52194 -

1. You ask whether the Clintonistas comparing Obama to Ken Starr is a smear or a lie. I would say that it is an outrageous (outrageously false) comparison, and in this sense clearly contstitutes a smear. But thank you for admitting that the Clinton campaign shouldn’t have said that.

2. You ask whether the Clintonistas accusing Obama of going negative when they themselves are going negative is a smear or a lie. I would say that at best it is duplicitous, at worst an outright lie. But thank you for admitting that the Clinton campaign shouldn't have said that.

3. You ask for evidence and for a link that demonstrates that the Clinton campaign released a photo of BHO dressed in African--and seemingly Muslim--garb to Matt Drudge. Well, here's the link to the Drudge piece which ran the photo, a piece which also explicitly states, ". . .stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a 'dressed' Barack Obama [in Muslim garb]."

4. You say that Hillary never crossed a line by suggesting that McCain would make a better president than Obama, and then you cite a quote from HRC in support of your assertion. But it is not the quote to which I was referring. The quote from Hillary that created such a furor in the Dem party is, according to Time magazine, the following: "Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he [Obama] was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she [Hillary] told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: 'I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002'--a reference to the address in which Obama, before being elected to the Senate, had publicly opposed the Iraq invasion that she and McCain had voted to authorize."

James Fallows reports that in addition to saying the above at a press conference, Hillary repeated this same assertion, twice, in a live interview on CNN. Which demonstrates that it was no slip of the tongue on HRC's part.

And here at TNR, this is Christopher Orr's take on Hillary's transgression in the above referenced remark: "There are certain lines that you do not cross in a primary campaign. And one of those is suggesting that your primary opponent, the likely nominee, is so unfit that that the Republican nominee might be preferable to him. This is spoiler territory, and Clinton should be ashamed."

5. You ask for a link that demonstrates that the Clintonistas attacked Obama for what has become known as NAFTA Gate, sending an emissary from his campaign to tell the Canadians that he didn't really mean what he was saying in Ohio with regard to undoing NAFTA--when, in actual fact, it was the Clinton campaign that had sent an emissary to tell the Canadians that HRC didn't really mean what SHE was saying in Ohio about undoing NAFTA.

Well, here are the relevant excerpts from the Toronto Globe and Mail, demonstrating according to the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, it was the CLINTON CAMPAIGN doing the NAFTA reassuring:

"Mr. Brodie [the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff], apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

"The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark. The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was 'telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.'

"The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats. . .

"There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign."

I think, David52194, that after taking all of the above into consideration, it should be fairly obvious that the Clinton campaign has repeatedly employed the kind of Rovian, big-lie smear tactics we have seen the Bushies employ over the past seven or eight years. . .

J Cuomo: We may be cross posting but:

Let me get this straight, the word of "an unnamed source" saying that "several people overheard the remark" counts for more than a) the word of the man (Brodie) who actually made the remark, b) the story originally reported in the Canadian press, c) the evidence of an actual memo describing the actual conversation between Obama's advisor (Gosloob?) and the Canadian consul and d) the Hillary campaign's flat denial?

Are you a creationist, too?  

David52194 -

Well, when I deleted the links from my post, it did (as you can see above) go through.

I then tried to post the links separately, but that post did not go through.

I don't what's going on here at TNR, but it's clear that the new Talkback format is about as dysfunctional as the Democratic presidential nominating process.

newdex-

Regarding #1 and #2, I think I've made my point above.

Regarding #3, I think you're being disingenous here. When Drudge accused the Clintonistas of releasing the photo of Obama in what appeared to be Muslim garb, numerous reporters confronted the Clinton campaign, but the campaign DID NOT DENY THAT THEY HAD RELEASED THE PHOTO. Instead, the Clintonistas said that, regardless, there's nothing wrong with Obama's wearing that clothing, and that it's absurd to call it "divisive."

Then, according to Chris Orr here at TNR: ". . .on 'Morning Joe,' Hillary supporter Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones said that the Clinton campaign would not 'condone' the circulation of such a photo, and that 'I would not personally have done it.' But she adds, 'I have no shame, or no problem, with people looking at Barack Obama in his native clothing, in THE CLOTHING OF HIS COUNTRY' [Chris Orr's emphasis]. For anyone dim enough to have missed her implication, seconds later she bought up peoples' right to wear 'the clothing of their nation' yet one more time."

In other words, Clintonista Stephanie Tubbs was suggesting repeatedly that in the photo of Obama wearing supposedly Muslim garb--which is, in actual fact, SOMALI garb--BHO is wearing the CLOTHING OF HIS NATION. This is a lie, and in the context of the campaign, it is a smear.  

Regarding #5, the point here is that the Clintonistas beat Obama up repeatedly for supposedly telling the Canadians that BHO didn't mean what he said regarding NAFTA--when, in fact, there were several witnesses who heard the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff say that it was the Clinton campaign that had told him HILLARY DIDN'T MEAN WHAT SHE SAID regarding NAFTA. This is, at best, duplicitous of Hillary and her campaign.

Regarding #4, thanks for admitting that, as you put it, Hillary "praising McCain in this way sucks." I would say that HRC's assertion, made repeatedly, would clearly constitute a smear against Obama. But it is more than that. For it demonstrates a willingness on the part of Hillary to tear down the potential Dem nominee (Obama) IN FAVOR OF THE OPPOSITION'S NOMINEE.

But, really, newdex, there are so many, many, many examples of Hillary's campaign acting in a Rovian manner, that it is beyond comprehension that you would deny this.

Joseph wrote: “You ask whether the Clintonistas comparing Obama to Ken Starr is a smear or a lie. I would say that it is an outrageous (outrageously false) comparison, and in this sense clearly contstitutes a smear. But thank you for admitting that the Clinton campaign shouldn’t have said that.”

The Clinton campaign wasn’t comparing Obama to Ken Starr in any thick sense.  Here is what Howard Wolfson said: "After a campaign in which many of the questions that voters had in the closing days centered on concerns that they had over his state of preparedness to be commander in chief and steward of the economy, he has chosen instead of addressing those issues to attack Senator Clinton.  I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."  But I agree that Wolfson shouldn’t have said that.  It doesn’t help us get at the truth.  And it frustrates some people.  And it is not clear that it will contribute to any good consequence.    

It seems to me that the underdog needs to be tougher, scrappier and meaner. I would characterize some of HRC's tactics as just that -- but I would not go so far as to characterize them as "lies and smears".  Now that Obama is on the defensive, I think we will see him employing similar tactics.

In non-political contests the referee or umpire decides who has broken the rules. Contestants without fail push the envelope as far as they possibly can. None play a safe game. They go as far as they possibly can without crossing the line. Sometimes they intentionally cross the line, hoping nobody will notice; and if they do, no matter -- a brief penalty and the game goes on. All of this is taken for granted by the fans. In politics there are no rules. In politics the voters are the umpire; the voters decide what the rules are (this time around) and who has broken them.  

Despite political fans from both sides screaming 'Foul!', the game will go on.

Joseph wrote: “2. You ask whether the Clintonistas accusing Obama of going negative when they themselves are going negative is a smear or a lie. I would say that at best it is duplicitous, at worst an outright lie. But thank you for admitting that the Clinton campaign shouldn't have said that.”

As far as I know, that is not a lie.  Because wasn’t the claim true?  And didn’t the Clinton campaign know it was true?

Joseph wrote: “3. You ask for evidence and for a link that demonstrates that the Clinton campaign released a photo of BHO dressed in African--and seemingly Muslim--garb to Matt Drudge. Well, here's the link to the Drudge piece which ran the photo, a piece which also explicitly states, ". . .stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a 'dressed' Barack Obama [in Muslim garb]."

That’s not grounds for reasonably inferring that some Clinton staffer released the photo.  The source isn’t reliable.  Moreover, in your original post, you talked about Hillary Clinton’s “ruthlessness” and compared her to Karl Rove.  And you used this example of the photograph of Obama to try support your position.  However, there is no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton had anything to do with the photograph.  And she said that, as far as she knew, no one in her campaign released the photo.  So, it’s not fair to criticize her so harshly for something that she wasn’t involved with.  

Joseph wrote: “4. You say that Hillary never crossed a line by suggesting that McCain would make a better president than Obama, and then you cite a quote from HRC in support of your assertion.”

Here is what I said: “She never said that McCain would make a better president than Obama or anything remotely similar.”

Joseph wrote: “But it is not the quote to which I was referring. The quote from Hillary that created such a furor in the Dem party is, according to Time magazine, the following: "Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he [Obama] was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she [Hillary] told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: 'I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002'--a reference to the address in which Obama, before being elected to the Senate, had publicly opposed the Iraq invasion that she and McCain had voted to authorize."

Joseph, here is your original point that I responded to: “Clinton herself crossed a line--especially as a candidate in a Democratic primary--by suggesting that she OR the GOP nominee, John McCain (you know, the guy the Dems are supposed to be trying to defeat), would make a better president than Obama.”

Again, Clinton never said “John McCain…would make a better president than Obama” or anything remotely similar.  

Cuomo: On point one you've only reasserted your opinion.  I disagree.  

On point 2, duplicitious? maybe a bit.  But then nobody has to accuse Hillary of going negative, that's the working assumption.  Obama on the other hand has created an image of himself as above going negative, all the while going negative persistently.  Also a bit duplicitous.

Point 3: Wolfeson flatly denied to reporters in a conference call the very morning of the report that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with it.  He also, for obvious reasons that you would easily understand if it was the Obama campaign, admitted that he couldn't "confirm or deny that any staffer was connected to it."  I'll bet, if pressed, Obama couldn't "confirm or deny" that any of HIS staffers were connected to it, either.  Of course Wolfeson's denial got buried under the "can't confirm or deny part," which got huge play, along with Obama's denunciation and the Clinton campaign's response to that denunciation.  The last two were quoted extensively.  I have yet to see an actual quote of Wolfeson's original statement.  Why?  Not interesting.  As for Tubbs - not a member of the campaign, just some supporter who said something stupid.  

Point 5: Did you even read what I wrote?  Did you even read what you quoted in your own post?  I don't know what else to say about it.  

Point 4: I agree that praising McCain in this way is crossing a line, but don't pretend that Obama doesn't engage in a lot of "tearing down a potential Dem nominee"

Joseph, on the issue of NAFTA and Canada, here is the statement from Clinton spokesman Phil Singer on this NAFTA issue: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from.”

Here is a link:

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments

So, it looks like the Clinton campaign denies that they talked to leaders in Canada and told them to take Clinton’s comments about NAFTA with a grain of salt.  

Joseph Cuomo, one more thing:

"there are so many, many, many examples of Hillary's campaign acting in a Rovian manner"

If you devine "Rovian" as attacking your opponent, then everybody's Rovian in this race.  If you define it as using "big lies," you haven't come up with one decent example.  

David52194-

1. You suggest that Wolfson suggesting that Obama is "imitating Ken Starr" is not the same as the Clintonistas "comparing Obama to Ken Starr." Frankly, I don't see the difference. But thank you for admitting that Wolfson shouldn’t have said that.

2. You suggest that the Obama campaign was going negative when in actual fact what Obama said is that Hillary's claim--that she has been vetted, that she has nothing to hide--is a claim that should be tested. This does not appear to constitute going negative. And it certainly doesn't compare to the kitchen-sink approach that the Clintonistas have taken, in which the very core of Hillary's strategy has been to go negative. To paraphrase one Clinton aide, their intent, in Ohio and Texas and beyond, was to rip Obama's face off.

3. We may have been cross-posting here. Please see my response above to newdex, regarding #3.

David52194-

It appears that we have been cross-posting. But here's my response to your most recent posts.

4. You claim that your original point stands: “She [Hillary] never said that McCain would make a better president than Obama or anything remotely similar.” But this is, at best, disingenuous. Hillary certainly--and explicity--implied that McCain would make a better president than Obama. First, she was clearly--and explicity--implying that she would make a better president than Obama; this was the point of her 3am ad, and the point of her assertion that she has a lifetime of experience whereas BHO has only a speech he made in 2002. Second, she suggests that both she and McCain are in the same position; that is, they BOTH have a lifetime of experience, while BHO has only a 2002 speech. So, then, by this logic, if McCain is in the same position as she is regarding Obama, then this clearly implies that EITHER she and John McC would make a better president than Obama.

5. Regarding NAFTA Gate, the Clinton campaign may now be saying that it didn't tell the Canadians that her NAFTA assertions were false, but there is still that fact that several witnesses heard the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff say that the Clinton campaign did exactly this.

newdex-

I'm getting tired of these exchanges, and I would guess that others are getting tired of them as well.

So I'll be brief.

Regarding #1, we can agree to disagree.

Regarding #2, please see my response above to  David52194.

Regarding #3, thank you for admitting that Clintonista Stephanie Tubbs said something stupid about Obama.

Regarding #5, I think, again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Regarding #4, thank you for admitting (again) that Hillary praising McCain is crossing a line, and that it sucks. But to suggest that Obama has committed a similar transgression is just pure fantasy.

In the end, though, I think we should give it a rest, newdex. You've had your say, I've had mine, and it appears that there isn't any way in hell that I am going to convince you of my position, or that you are going to convince me of yours.

Joseph wrote: “2. You suggest that the Obama campaign was going negative when in actual fact what Obama said is that Hillary's claim--that she has been vetted, that she has nothing to hide--is a claim that should be tested. This does not appear to constitute going negative. And it certainly doesn't compare to the kitchen-sink approach that the Clintonistas have taken, in which the very core of Hillary's strategy has been to go negative. To paraphrase one Clinton aide, their intent, in Ohio and Texas and beyond, was to rip Obama's face off.”

Here is what David Axelrod said: "If she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues - as I've said before, I don't know why they'd want to go there - but I guess that's where they'll take the race.”  He is sort of suggesting that Clinton might have some ethical missteps in her past.  He talks about real estate deals.  One thinks of Whitewater.  

Here is a link:

www.boston.com/.../obama_vies_to_push_back_stay_positive

There is also the radio ad in Mississippi which mentions that Clinton said derogatory things about the state before.  That’s sort of negative.

You said that Clinton lied about his campaign going negative.  That’s not a lie.  Is it a smear?  Who cares?  This is not important.  You should focus on the issues.  That helps us make more progress.  

Joseph wrote: "4. You claim that your original point stands: “She [Hillary] never said that McCain would make a better president than Obama or anything remotely similar.” But this is, at best, disingenuous. Hillary certainly--and explicity--implied that McCain would make a better president than Obama. First, she was clearly--and explicity--implying that she would make a better president than Obama; this was the point of her 3am ad, and the point of her assertion that she has a lifetime of experience whereas BHO has only a speech he made in 2002. Second, she suggests that both she and McCain are in the same position; that is, they BOTH have a lifetime of experience, while BHO has only a 2002 speech. So, then, by this logic, if McCain is in the same position as she is regarding Obama, then this clearly implies that EITHER she and John McC would make a better president than Obama."

Joseph, here is your original point that I responded to: “Clinton herself crossed a line--especially as a candidate in a Democratic primary--by suggesting that she OR the GOP nominee, John McCain (you know, the guy the Dems are supposed to be trying to defeat), would make a better president than Obama.”

Again, Clinton never said “John McCain…would make a better president than Obama” or anything remotely similar.   This is getting silly.

Also, I don't like the phone call ad.  And I agree that she should have worded those comments about Obama and McCain differently than she did.  There is very good reason to believe that Obama would be better at international affairs than McCain.  However, it is also likely that Obama's lack of experience would be a disadvantage in terms of him winning a general election against McCain.  

newdex,  I don't get it either. you can say what Clinton is doing is simply politics, and that the goal is to just win, but I can't see how you can claim she isn't doing it. I have seen Hillary supporters on threads here turn vehemently away from her because of her actions. I think many people have the sense that we are Democrats, that we shouldn't behave this way, the whole politics of personal destruction trope.

I don't have problems with her going negative, but she should have done it much earlier, way before Iowa. She underestimated Obama and paid the price but now it is too late for her, barring an Obama collapse. Just wait until the Clinton's release their taxes. Bill didn't amass his 100 million dollar fortune with savvy investing.

Joseph wrote: “5. Regarding NAFTA Gate, the Clinton campaign may now be saying that it didn't tell the Canadians that her NAFTA assertions were false, but there is still that fact that several witnesses heard the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff say that the Clinton campaign did exactly this.”

Do you have a link about these “witnesses?”  According to the Canadian Press: “Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.”

Here is a link:

canadianpress.google.com/.../ALeqM5gNMJKvj5eQRQBNSeQj3bTyETSagQ

David52194-

As I said to newdex (above), I'm getting tired of these exchanges, and I would guess that others are getting tired of them as well.

So I'll be brief.

Regarding #2, it isn't clear what point you're making. But thanks for admitting that Hillary's campaign has gone negative.

Regarding #4, even the more ardent of Hillary's supporters (like newdex) admit that what HRC said--regarding McCain having a lifetime of experience and Obama having merely a speech from 2002--"sucks" (as newdex put it) and that it certainly crossed a line.

I'm sorry, David52194, I think you've tried to be honorable in your posts here, but for you to say that Hillary was NOT suggesting--repeatedly--that McCain would make a better president than Obama is so obtuse, it's not only risible, it borders on the delusional.

But thank you for admitting that you don't like HRC's 3am-phone-call ad, and thank you for admitting that Hillary should have worded her comments about McCain differently.

In the end, though, as I said (above) to newdex, I think we should give it a rest, David52194. You've had your say, I've had mine, and it appears that there isn't any way in hell that I am going to convince you of my position, or that you are going to convince me of yours.

Joseph, I don't know all the details with the Obama photograph.  But my understanding is that Howard Wolfson denied that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with the photograph.  And, as Newdex mentioned, Wolfson also said he couldn't "confirm or deny that any staffer was connected to it."  It makes sense for Wolfson to say that.  He doesn’t know for certain that no member of the campaign staff emailed the photo.  But Wolfson, speaking on behalf of the campaign, denies that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with it.  And there is good reason to believe that it is true.  Hillary Clinton is an honest person, and she is the person in charge of the campaign.  And she said that if she found out that someone in her campaign did it, she would relieve the person of his or her position.  

Joseph wrote: "Regarding #2, it isn't clear what point you're making."

My point is that you said that Clinton campaigned lied when they asserted that the Obama campaign had gone negative.  And it is not fair of you to say that they lied.  They didn't lie.  The campaign did sort of make some negative comments.  

But I agree that it would have been better if  the Clinton campaign had never brought the point about the Obama campaign's alleged negative comments.  They should just respond to the comments.  And if the comments made by members of the Obama campaign are false, unwarranted or problematic, the Clinton campaign should say so and why.  

Is Hillary destroying the Democratic Party?-short answer yes and she announced her intention to do so with the 3:00 AM-bullshit-phone ringing add(hey maybe it was the CIA or whoever on the phone saying for the 3rd or 4th time that  they had Bin Laden and did do you want him yet).  As I've always said there is only the Warfare/Welfare Party and everybody else. The superdelegates exist to squelch any GENUINE  peace candidate. Say wouldn't it be cool to watch(for the GOP wing of the W/W Party) a reprise of the '68 Dem convention with all those passionate change-seeking youths being clubbed outside by the police as the delegates do their dirty work inside?

Joseph wrote: “Regarding #4, even the more ardent of Hillary's supporters (like newdex) admit that what HRC said--regarding McCain having a lifetime of experience and Obama having merely a speech from 2002--"sucks" (as newdex put it) and that it certainly crossed a line.

“I'm sorry, David52194, I think you've tried to be honorable in your posts here, but for you to say that Hillary was NOT suggesting--repeatedly--that McCain would make a better president than Obama is so obtuse, it's not only risible, it borders on the delusional.

“But thank you for admitting that you don't like HRC's 3am-phone-call ad, and thank you for admitting that Hillary should have worded her comments about McCain differently.”

This is the main comment by Clinton that you have in mind, right? Clinton said: “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.”  

Let’s talk about the comment.  It wasn’t a good comment.  First, there is very good reason to believe that Obama would be a much better president than McCain.  Second, if Obama wins the nomination, that kind of comment could sway some people to be less apt to vote for Obama.  Third, she could have made a point about Obama’s experience versus McCain in a better way.  For example, she could have stressed that McCain has been in national politics since 1980 or 81, when he was first elected to the US House of Representatives.  He’s been in the Senate since (I think) 1986 or 1987.  Obama has only been in national politics since 2005, when he started serving in the US Senate.  So, McCain has had more opportunity to be involved in international security issues at a high level.  Moreover, many US citizens perceive McCain as having much more relevant foreign policy experience than Obama has.  And many US citizens tend to weight experience when voting for president.  Thus, Obama would be disadvantaged against McCain in terms of winning a general election.  In contrast, Clinton has been serving in the Senate since 2001, and I believe she has served on the Armed Services committee during that whole time.  She also played a role in international affairs in her husband’s administration.  For example, she gave an important speech in China in 1995 on women’s right and human rights.  The speech was given in an undemocratic country that has not shown proper respect for human rights.  Thus, Clinton would not be disadvantaged in terms of winning a general election campaign against McCain in the way that Obama would be.  

So, here the stress of Clinton’s comments would be twofold.  First, not that Obama would struggle to be as a good a commander-in-chief as McCain, but that he would struggle to defeat McCain in a general election.  Second, Clinton is more ready to be a good foreign policy leader than Obama is at this time.  She has better experience.  She has good judgment, for instance, her speech in China and her commitment to human rights and diplomacy.  She is also loved around the world.  And she hasn’t advocated that the US take military action against alleged terrorists in Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistan a government.  The latter suggests that Obama could use some more seasoning on foreign affairs, as such a policy is unreasonably risky (for example, it could result in more suicide bombers) and violent.  

J.Cuomo: we've said our bits, agreed.  I'd hate to bore anyone here.   But I'll just say that, in my opinion, if the Democratic party is in danger of being "ripped apart," its as much due to the kind of insistent vitriol, completely resistant to logic, coming from so many Obama supporters towards Hillary, as it is from anything else.  I'm not blaming the Obama campaign for this, although I don't think they discourage it.  By the way, I voted for Obama.  

Blackton: I've never claimed that Hillary hasn't gone or doesn't go "negative."  There are things she's done that I don't approve of at all: McCain, Rezko, and I don't care for the 3:AM ad either.  But Obama's done things I don't approve of either.  There's no question he's "gone negative" and not just negative, but "personally destructive."  In fact, I'm rather dissapointed with both candidates in terms of the tone of thier campaigns.  But I'm even more dissapointed in the way the whole thing's been covered by the press and the way so many Democrats seem to be responding to it.  

I think its grossly unfair to pin the blame on Clinton.    I've noticed Hillary supporters on threads here turn vehemently away from her too, but I've also noticed grossly unfair reporting and subjective, distorted interpretations of her actions being passed around like incontrivertible facts.  Like I said, I don't think either side is innocent.  But the overwhelming presence of irrational Hillary hatred and double standards around here gets me worked up sometimes.  

Lesserliz wrote: “Is Hillary destroying the Democratic Party?-short answer yes and she announced her intention to do so with the 3:00 AM-bullshit-phone ringing add(hey maybe it was the CIA or whoever on the phone saying for the 3rd or 4th time that  they had Bin Laden and did do you want him yet).”

Hillary is not destroying the Democratic Party.  After this election, the Democratic Party will be one of the two most popular political parties in the US; it will probably control the US Senate, and probably control the US House.  And it’s more likely than not that Democratic nominee will win the Presidency.  First, both Clinton and Obama lead McCain in head-to-head polls.  More importantly, country has changed and moved in the Democrats direction.  Consider a Pew Poll that came out about a year ago.  

Lesserlize wrote: “The superdelegates exist to squelch any GENUINE  peace candidate.”

My understanding is that the people who came up who came up with the idea of superdelegates and included them in the nominating process did not do so with the intention of squelching any genuine peace candidate.  In 1982, a commission headed by then-North Carolina Gov. James Hunt created the category of uncommitted delegates, or “superdelegates.”  According to Hunt, “We felt the party needed these public officials and party leaders.  We needed these people to have a good convention, to select the best candidate to represent the party, to have a sense of ownership in the fall campaign, and to be part of things going forward.”  Here is a link to the article:

public.cq.com/.../weeklyreport110-000002675899.html

So, I don’t think the commission headed by Hunt had in mind the idea of squelching peace candidates.  That probably didn’t even cross their mind.  They were probably most concerned about Democrats winning in the general election and thought that the existence of superdelegates would increase the likelihood that Democrats would win in the general.  

At any rate, I strongly oppose the idea of superdelegates and hope that the Democrats do away with this idea after this election.  The nominee should be the person who wins the most popular votes.  That’s the most democratic way.  Some people are concerned that if we do away with superdelegates and choose the nominee by a popular vote, that it will increase the number of instances in which the Democrats nominate candidates for President who don’t have a good chance of winning the general election.  However, that possibility should not be that important in terms of what rules the Democrats come up with for selecting the nominee for president.  It is hard to know how a more democratic process would affect winning and losing in the general.  But we know that going to a popular vote would make the process of selecting the Democratic nominee very democratic.  And it is important for each person to be as equal to all other people in terms of political power.  For example, it would be unfair to have a group of philosopher-kings choose the Democrat’s nominee.  

"Rips his guts out"?!

Chait, I think you are just a little too close to Obama....take a valium buddy, your argument is not nearly as slam dunk as you think.Your approach to the subject is the single most dismaying aspect of this campaign...the propensity of liberal journalists to grovel slavishly before a borderline demagogic candidate.

David52194. I appreciate the history lesson(reallly) but I believe that whatever their origins the superdels exist today here and now to stop the peace candidate. Further the Dems may well win presidency and both House and Senate but I don't think it will be a victory for the people if the people's candidate is not nominated. Maybe I should have said that Hillary intends to destroy the CHOICE of the Democratic party or is WILLING to destroy the party(but this will not occur because being in power means it is not destroyed). Or does it?  

"Unless, of course, she just rips his guts out and disqualifies him as a plausible president."

This has got to be the silliest argument I have ever heard.  (Except for all the other pro-Obama silly arguments).  

You assume that it is possible for Hillary Clinton to DISQUALIFY Obama for President.  Not make it harder to win - DISQUALIFY him.  You've got to be pretty confident in your guy to think that somebody (anybody) can possibly demonstrate that he is disqualified for office.  

Or maybe Hillary is the only person in the world with the qualifications to disqualify Obama.  So if she goes away, then he'll sneak in without anybody realizing how disqualified he is.

That's a pretty strong argument for ending the campaign right now and handing it to Obama.  Right.

There goes Chait with the presentist "Wilson was a segregationist" meme.  Listen, Chait, you nitwit, segregation was the NORM back then.  Trying to score a point that way is an arrogant cheap shot.  And how do you know your colleague is "far nicer" than Wilson?  Do you channel him or something?  

One thing for sure, Wilson was a far BETTER PERSON than this dwarf.

And, by the way, it's not "she knows she can't convince them to override" but "she knows she can't PERSUADE them to override."  I can't believe they pay this guy.

Yes, thank you, Jim.  Oh, and Chait,  Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, plus even a lotta prominent people up north owned slaves well into the 19th Century.

So that means the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution are all total, hypocritical bullshit.  Oh, and Jack Kennedy never slept with any black chicks.  And Bill Clinton wasn't always a perfect feminist.  And Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart.

We're no better than the fucking Chinese!

jm_rice:  Segregation was the norm in many places back then, but it wasn't the norm in the White House until Wilson became president.  WIlson was a big racist even by the standards of the time, and he helped fund "Birth of a Nation"

"And, by the way, it's not "she knows she can't convince them to override" but "she knows she can't PERSUADE them to override."  I can't believe they pay this guy."

Huh?  The Oxford English Dictionary has as one definition of convince: "to persuade by argument or evidence."

Incredulity at another's error is much more effective if they have in fact erred.

Segregation wasn't the norm in the White House until Wilson?  WTF???

And what do you mean segregation was the norm "in many places"?  It was the norm everywhere!  We just had an Ohio poster call his state "the Mississippi of the North."  The most notorious lynching photo is from Indiana.  The worst anti-war rioting of the Civil War was in New York City, and it was a race riot.

And Wilson helped fund Birth of a Nation?  Who says?

"Incredulity at another's error is much more effective if they have in fact erred."

It's a matter of usage.  Today's dictionaries reflect the descriptive, "whatever" approach to grammar.  What's proper?  Let's take a vote.

Here's your authority, from the American Heritage Politically Correct Dictionary of the English Language:

"According to a traditional rule, one persuades someone to act but convinces someone of the truth of a statement or proposition: By convincing me that no good could come of staying, he persuaded me to leave. If the distinction is accepted, then convince should not be used with an infinitive: He persuaded (not convinced) me to go. In a 1981 survey, 61 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the use of convince with an infinitive. But the tide of sentiment against the construction appears to be turning. In a 1996 survey 74 percent accepted it in the sentence I tried to convince him to chip in a few dollars, but he refused. Even in passive constructions, a majority of the Panel accepted convince with an infinitive. Fifty-two percent accepted the sentence After listening to the teacher's report, the committee was convinced to go ahead with the new reading program. Persuade, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable when used with an infinitive or a that clause in both active and passive constructions. An overwheming majority of Panelists in the 1996 survey accepted the following sentences: After a long discussion with her lawyer, she was persuaded to drop the lawsuit. The President persuaded his advisors that military action was necessary. Thus, it seems likely that advocates of the traditional rule governing persuade and convince will find fewer and fewer allies in their camp."

A language renews itself with its vocabulary, not its grammar and usage, which shoulld remain constant.  But the academics are too lazy to coerce good usage.  They're too busy getting off on their own little pursuits, so they cloak their laziness and narcissism in tolerance.

Anyway, if you think "convince to" is fine, then try to submit something with that to The New Yorker and see how far you get.  Educated people know the difference.   Since apparently TNR is edited by adolescents you should have an easier time.

Newdex, though we disagree about Wilson, you are spot on here:

"...if the Democratic party is in danger of being "ripped apart," its as much due to the kind of insistent vitriol, completely resistant to logic, coming from so many Obama supporters towards Hillary, as it is from anything else.  I'm not blaming the Obama campaign for this, although I don't think they discourage it."

Couldn't have said it better.  It's not so much Obama as his followers.  They react to Hillary almost like Muslims react to the cartoons.

Please find an an hour to see Shelby Steele talk about the Obama phenomenon here:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/arc_btv/btv012708_steele.rm

It's a truly great talk.