Hillary does want to be president. I believe she wants it so bad that she is in a sort of denial that she is not going to be president this time around. But if she is thinking about 2012, which surely she is, she has to know the more Obama supporters that she alienates, the less chance she has of getting the nomination in '12. She is acting as if she is in this to the bitter end, that is, the convention. I think that she might soldier on yet past next week.

It's possible this outlandish Harriet C.  is a mole for McCain.  I mean, she does begin her tirade with the "Older American" card.  Perhaps this is a preview of a new effort by the Radical Reactionist AARP wing to spearhead an "Older Americans are Second Class Citizens; McCain 2008" campaign.  

I think she'll stick it out through the last primary, then get $15m not to take it to Denver.  After that she'll work her ass off for Obama to show that her loyalty to the party ultimately does trump her personal ambition. HRC has 4 years to mend fences with Obama voters so it really doesn't matter whether these efforts actually move her embittered(!) supporters.

I make these predictions having consulted the sediment at the bottom of my coffee mug.

Heilemann is correct both that Hillary wants to be President and that she knows she will not be the Democratic nominee in 2008.  I think he understates how far she is willing to go to undermine Obama to reach her goal of being President.  Unlike Heilemann, I do not believe she thinks that Obama will lose with the support of a unified Democratic Party.  Rather, I think Hillary believes that Obama will lose the general election only if she undermines his campaign.  An Obama victory in 2008 will torpedo any possibility that Hillary will ever be President.  Therefore, I think she will do anything to destroy Obama--even condemn us to 4 more years of a Republican President.

Zengerle, you assert that the Clinton campaign bussed in supporters but provide no proof. As you provide links to non-stories it makes me think that you're probably making it up because it suits your agenda.

The story by Eve (love the way women are addressed by their first names but not men) is a waste of space, there are nuts to be found for everything and if the point of the story is to blame the Clinton campaign for the invective seeping down then you need to be a real journalist and show how the nasty personal  invective of Obama supporters (on show on these pages by posters like Roid, LiberalReformer and Blackton and thousands more at Kos, TPM and HuffPo) are influenced by his campaign.

The U-Tube video is equally meaningless or do I have to give you links to Obama supporters on U-Tube calling for Clinton's assassination as Drudge doesn't do that work for you.

She and Bill have been living in a bubble for so long they don't know what reality is.  She so firmly believes she MUST be the next President, she simply cannot accept that it ain't gonna happen.  Both of them have shown their racist sides as well, by this total and complete denial of any possibility that Obama could possibly win.

Brother - However valid your points are, you are simply mistaken to include LiberalReformer in your list of Obama supporters who use "personal invective" against Clinton and her supporters. LibRef is a voice of reason and a very recent Obama convert, brought to the Obama camp only reluctantly by the actions of his original candidate of choice - HRC.

Carol

Oh - you're also wrong, I'm sorry to point out, about the first name thing. I see "Mike," "John (Judis)," "Jamie," in these posts all the time.

You have more credibility on the point you're trying to make if you get your facts straight.

LibRef, wherever you are, hope you don't mind my presuming to speak for you.

One aspect of the Scorpion nature is said to be that of ‘self sabotage’. There is a story that illustrates this in a light hearted but apt way. The story goes that a Scorpion came to a river, but it was too deep to cross. He asked a frog he saw sitting on the bank to carry him across on his back. The frog said ‘no, you’ll sting me and I’ll die’. The Scorpion said ‘why would I do that, then I couldn’t get across the river’? The frog was convinced, so agreed to carry the Scorpion across the river. Half way across the Scorpion stung the frog. The frog said ‘why did you do that, now we’re both going to die’. The Scorpion replied ‘I’m a Scorpion, I can’t help it, it’s what I do’.

from: www.forecasters.co.nz/.../scorpio.htm

and there are two Jonathans running around, so they have to be called by their last names.

brotherfromanotherplanet: it was reported last week in the media (I can't remember specifically where, but it was from msm sources) that Hillary Clinton did encourage her supporters to protest, and did in fact provide bussing to the event. And some of the supporters protesting outside included political figures.

wow the vitriol even comes here.  i am still amazed at folks claiming the nomination is being stolen from hrc despite all the establishment resources, huge lead at the begining, and the big dog to campaign for her.  and that kind of talk will only contribute to division.  as gore told dean, it isnt about any one person, it is about the country.  do some hrc supporters really want mccain and brownback picking stevens replacement at scotus? (that will set womens right back 30 years) or his laisez faire healthcare plan? you want someone who avows he doesnt understand the economy running the place when we may be headed into our worst financial crisis siince the depression? you want another 100 years of war?

wow the vitriol even comes here.  i am still amazed at folks claiming the nomination is being stolen from hrc despite all the establishment resources, huge lead at the begining, and the big dog to campaign for her.  and that kind of talk will only contribute to division.  as gore told dean, it isnt about any one person, it is about the country.  do some hrc supporters really want mccain and brownback picking stevens replacement at scotus? (that will set womens right back 30 years) or his laisez faire healthcare plan? you want someone who avows he doesnt understand the economy running the place when we may be headed into our worst financial crisis siince the depression? you want another 100 years of war?

That's a lot of fence-mending Clinton will need to do, because at this point, I wouldn't vote for her in 2012.  (And I started this interminable primary season enthusiastically supporting her.)

chmclean, here's LibRef today on another TNR blog

liberal reformer said:

Four delegates do not a convention challenge make but add in Hillary's defecit in delegates overall, plus her near sense of entitlement, and you have a recipe for trucking on. She may withdraw out of pragmatic considerations, i.e., she will want the support of Obama supporters in 2012, if he were to lose this year but I think her uberdetermination orients her forward and her cast-iron stomach is prepared to handle anything.

I'd agree it's not at the Roid level by any stretch but in two sentences he accuses her of delusion, entitlement issues and dishonesty. (FYI Invective can mean anything from abusive to highly critical).

As for your second point re: over familiarity, I'm only reading what's in front of me,  but you may be correct, links would be nice.

PSant - I trust the astrological reference is a joke. But just in case you're serious

www.badastronomy.com/.../astrology.html

Scire - wow if the MSM said it it must be true! Let me introduce you to some people who still keep the media critique alive (now Marshall and his ilk have given up and are auditioning for gigs in the mainstream).

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

www.fair.org/index.php

http://mediamatters.org/

Next time please don't just state your refutation loudly, link to prove it.

DBHuff - I presume your addressing me with your vitriol statement and if my presumption is right could you point to one example of me supporting McCain for POTUS. Or is it just an assumption?

"I'd agree it's not at the Roid level by any stretch but in two sentences he accuses her of delusion, entitlement issues and dishonesty."

Your point?

Oh gawd, a refutation of astrology. Just what I needed. pfft. Forget astrology - tell me she isn't the scorpion here, tell me she isn't shooting herself and the Democratic party and the country in the foot with all of these totally counterproductive shennanigans. And I'm too lazy to link, but I read that there were protest parties promoted on her campaign blog. And I clicked on the links and saw them. Obama specifically and publicly told his supporters not to do that, and she did not. So she endorses this garbage. I hope she loses her senate seat.

what timteeter said.

Chmclean: Thanks for the defense and the correction. You almost got it right. I defected from Hillary but I have not yet clambered aboard the Obama bandwagon. At least you are far more correct than alienfromanotherplanet. It always amazes me when someone infers by a person's critique of A that he or she must support B. As for alien, Hillary originally signed off on the DNC's position on Florida and Michigan. Then, when she needed the delegates, she started cauterwauling about unfairness and compared Florida to Zimbabwe. Oh, now I see my mistake. Hillary is an avatar of rampant honesty. Shout it to the world.

Yo, Brother form whatever planet perhaps not this one,

I would just like to say on my own behalf that my animus toward Hillary Clinton long antedates the appearance on the scene of Barack Obama.  I've had the chance to watch her close up in New York and I figured out quite some time ago that she is not a good Democrat, indeed not a Democrat at all, just a user and opportunist who, through accident, her marriage to Bill Clinton, has found it expedient to make the Democratic party the vehicle for her ambition.  After initially being a supporter and, like any believer, doing my best to rationalize her bad behavior, I decided when she came out with her anti-flag-burning pander to the right that she would sell out the party and its values at any moment she found it opportune.  Indeed, she has done nothing but since the moment that her inevitability argument fell apart.  That she has for some months now been trying to trash the party's nominee does not surprise me.  I would have been surprised if she had done anything else.  That would have meant that I had mis-estimated her.  It is clear that I haven't.  Obama represents deliverance from Hillary Clinton.  Thank god.  I would rather have a real Republican in the White House than a crypto-Republican sabotaging the Democratic party and bringing blame upon it for advancing the Republican agenda.  With a Democratic Congress and McCain in the White House, we are actually much safer than we would be with Hillary in the White House and the Democratic party falling apart in fratricide of the kind she is doing everything possible to provoke now.  Anyone who thinks that merely because she got her toy her fundamental animus toward the Democratic party would go away is just dreaming.

I also happen to think that she is someone of no demonstrated ability, no accomplishment, and rather limited intellect.  But I don't hold those things against her.  Even people who aren't that smart are entitled to room on earth and can be very fine people in spite of their intellectual limitations.  What does offend me, however, is being asked publicly to declare that I am stupid by accepting ridiculous things, such as that Hillary is "tested, vetted, ready day one" when she is patently none of them.  A fake.  A poser.  You can legitimately think that Obama is too inexperienced to be president.  But he does not hold himself out to be something he is not or pretend to have done things he hasn't done or claim a record of achievement he does not have.  He holds himself out to the voters, tells them what he aspires to for the country, and asks us for our votes.  I can respect that whether I support him or not.  Hillary is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has some.

So, no, nothing whatever that Obama has said about Hillary (which is precious little - he wisely doesn't talk about her much, letting her sink herself) has anything whatsoever to do with my opinion about Hillary Clinton or what I choose to say about her.  If I were influenced by Obama in the slightest degree, I would keep it to myself.  But, as he is not my mentor, spiritual adviser, or guru, I prefer to let him conduct himself as he chooses and to get on about the valuable work of summoning all good Democrats to join me in rejecting, denouncing, and detesting Hillary Clinton.  You are welcome to join in at any time.  No hard feelings that you are late coming to the party.

Yo, Brother form whatever planet perhaps not this one,

I would just like to say on my own behalf that my animus toward Hillary Clinton long antedates the appearance on the scene of Barack Obama.  I've had the chance to watch her close up in New York and I figured out quite some time ago that she is not a good Democrat, indeed not a Democrat at all, just a user and opportunist who, through accident, her marriage to Bill Clinton, has found it expedient to make the Democratic party the vehicle for her ambition.  After initially being a supporter and, like any believer, doing my best to rationalize her bad behavior, I decided when she came out with her anti-flag-burning pander to the right that she would sell out the party and its values at any moment she found it opportune.  Indeed, she has done nothing but since the moment that her inevitability argument fell apart.  That she has for some months now been trying to trash the party's nominee does not surprise me.  I would have been surprised if she had done anything else.  That would have meant that I had mis-estimated her.  It is clear that I haven't.  Obama represents deliverance from Hillary Clinton.  Thank god.  I would rather have a real Republican in the White House than a crypto-Republican sabotaging the Democratic party and bringing blame upon it for advancing the Republican agenda.  With a Democratic Congress and McCain in the White House, we are actually much safer than we would be with Hillary in the White House and the Democratic party falling apart in fratricide of the kind she is doing everything possible to provoke now.  Anyone who thinks that merely because she got her toy her fundamental animus toward the Democratic party would go away is just dreaming.

I also happen to think that she is someone of no demonstrated ability, no accomplishment, and rather limited intellect.  But I don't hold those things against her.  Even people who aren't that smart are entitled to room on earth and can be very fine people in spite of their intellectual limitations.  What does offend me, however, is being asked publicly to declare that I am stupid by accepting ridiculous things, such as that Hillary is "tested, vetted, ready day one" when she is patently none of them.  A fake.  A poser.  You can legitimately think that Obama is too inexperienced to be president.  But he does not hold himself out to be something he is not or pretend to have done things he hasn't done or claim a record of achievement he does not have.  He holds himself out to the voters, tells them what he aspires to for the country, and asks us for our votes.  I can respect that whether I support him or not.  Hillary is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has some.

So, no, nothing whatever that Obama has said about Hillary (which is precious little - he wisely doesn't talk about her much, letting her sink herself) has anything whatsoever to do with my opinion about Hillary Clinton or what I choose to say about her.  If I were influenced by Obama in the slightest degree, I would keep it to myself.  But, as he is not my mentor, spiritual adviser, or guru, I prefer to let him conduct himself as he chooses and to get on about the valuable work of summoning all good Democrats to join me in rejecting, denouncing, and detesting Hillary Clinton.  You are welcome to join in at any time.  No hard feelings that you are late coming to the party.

brother, I have countless times come to the defense of John McCain on these pages, and have even spoken favorably of George Bush the few times I thought he was right (his recent work with the North Koreans for example) but I am sure as hell not going to tolerate out and out horseshit. Let me ask you, have you said not a single word of invective against George Bush or Dick Cheney the past 8 years? If you haven't, then you are a saint. If you have, and if you are a Democrat with half a brain you probably have, then you are a hypocrit pure and simple.

I have said before I am not going to be held hostage to a bunch of Hillary fanatics, then can not be reasoned with it is like talking with 3 year olds.

On the other hand, if and when a Hillary supporter chooses not to throw around words like Kool aid drinker but instead addresses the actual facts, of course I will debate them without invective, well to be honest, I have watched countless Hillary supporters turn away from her because of her loathesome campaign and not my persuasion.

Otherwise, there are countless people here whom I disagree with, butchie b and channy are Republicans and are pretty much always treated with respect. I support the war and the surge but have never been treated venomously by any TNR poster, I have just been disagreed with. But if someone had said I was a monster for supporting the war, then you can be damn sure I will give them what for back.

A large amount of Hillary supporters here have turned against her, those who stuck with her have been lamentably lack in any arguments to bolster her opinion and so themselves launch into invective (in a sense, as you have just done yourself by placing yourself as some kind of Gandhi like poster).

Facts. Just present the facts. Tell me how her gas tax holiday was not a pander but good for the economy. Tell me why it was necessary for her to mention RFK, or why she had to make up the story about Tuzla, or how she can plausibly claim Obama recieved 0 votes from Michigan, you know I can go on and on.

I will also admit Obama made some mistakes himself (the bitter line was boneheaded, he should realize that microphones can be anywhere).

I can contrast Hillary against Obama using facts. If you can, please do.

hey roid, no fair, there you go again using facts to butress your argument. As Hillary would say: Facts, facts, I got no use for your stupid facts.

Uh, sorry blackton.  I got carried away.

From the election front, Hillary has won PR by a very wide margin, but on an extremely low turnout, about 15% of the numbers that some of the Hillaristas were throwing around just yesterday.  A lesson in the volatility of an "election" results, e.g., MI and FL, when the voters know that only symbolism is at stake.  

The result is that Hillary will NOT win the popular vote, even including the margin she won in Michigan (62,000 votes).  It will certainly be close, for what it is worth, but it is also quite clear that after IN and NC, when only the completely wacked Hillaristas continued to hold out hope, Obama benched himself and began taking Hillarys shots without responding in order to woo her supporters.  Just a sign of his self-discipline.  

Still, due to Hillary's victory in PR, I think Obama's magic number just went up from 18 to 28.  Given SD, MT, and the Pelosi club, that's how many more super-delegates Obama will likely need to clinch.  It would be great if, as has been reported in some places, 35 supers commit to him by Tuesday so that the last primaries, i.e., the voters, get to put him over the top.

The Times just now reports, however, that Clinton will begin airing national ads claiming that she has won the popular vote based on her inclusion of her Michigan tally with zero there for Obama.

Scorched earth.  Exactly as predicted.  Anything that she can do to diminish Obama under the cover of continuing to "fight" for the nomination, she will do.  

If the super-delegates and the party leadership have so much of an ounce of brains in their cowardly heads, they will get all, or almost all, of the remaining supers off the fence ASAP so that the media narrative can quickly change to the fact that Obama has secured an absolute majority of delegates and is the presumptive nominee.

This was Hillary's one and only shot at the presidency.  Regardless of the outcome in November, she will never be president--unless Obama is fool enough to put her on the ticket and "fate" elevates her.  As for 2012, her senate re-election prospects are looking dimmer and dimmer.   Positively Liebermanic, one might say.

Obama needs to come out fighting now, if she is going to use the last ammo reserves to claim that the votes in a state in which five candidates took their names off the ballot constitute an argument for her being in the lead.  This business of letting her get away with spreading hatred and hostility has to come to an end.  It appears to me more and more that Hillary is just taunting him -- she's saying, you can't attack me too brutally because your campaign is "above that" -- but hey, I never claimed mine was!"  And threats to vote Republican in November if Obama is the candidate should be taken as bluster and blackmail.  Indeed, all this may help Obama with the Independents, who would not vote for Clinton if their lives depended on it.

And always and ever bear in mind:  the ostensible Republican neutrality on this, or expressing some sympathy for Clinton, is to be treated with suspicion and caution.  If by some miracle she gets the nomination, it's happy days for the Republicans:  there is a large and scary anti-Clinton machine parked in the GOP attic that can be brought down and put into operation almost at once.  At one move the mobilization problem that McCain is facing -- inspiring the base -- is solved.  Obama in contrast poses problems that they don't yet know how to deal with.

Here you go, roid:

www.youtube.com/watch

roid, that poster of her is straight out of Communist China of the Cultural Revolution era. Honestly, substitute Mao for Hillary and it is exactly the same style. Are they that brain dead that they don't realize just how whacked out that poster is? Honestly, I want to get one because it is so freaking insane.

The only other explanation is that maybe someone sees it as Warholesque? But really, Andy Warhol pop art in 2008? Freaking brain dead art department on her team.

The article, commented upon in TNR today, about Bill's extracurricular activities is someone's warning shot to super-delegates -- that if anyone is getting cold feet and suddenly entertaining the idea that Hillary is more electable than Obama, they had better remember that his closet is pretty empty -- sat in the pews while Wright ranted -- while we don't even know a fraction of what will surely emerge if Hillary were the candidate.

One of the things that I have found perpetually amusing about discussions on these blogs has been the idea held by many, although far from all, that professional politicians look at all of these questions just as if they were members of the public "rooting" for their preferred candidate.  They don't.  Not even close.  They are constantly thinking about power, where it exists, where it is flowing, what can be done and is being done to alter its course. They are not like normal people in the way they count votes and look at elections.

Brother -

"I don't know, Mike" - directed at Michael Crowley.  "Yes, Michael, there are a lot of foolish people at TNR Online" - also directed at Michael Crowley. "Chris is headed to make a run in PA politics" - referring to Chris Matthews. "Come on Noam" - directed at Noam Schreiber.

And I find the quoted comments by LibRef to be tame. If you want "personal invective," please see posts by jacksondyer, jacobtl, pccostello (who has been MIA lately), and others whose handles escape me right now.

Carol

irony,

Elsewhere, I sort of ridiculed the idea, first expressed by you, that the primaries aren't a bye in the general.  I understood your point, which, to no surprise, was ironic.  Others took you rather too literally.  It was to them that I was referring.

Obama cannot now do what you ask.  If the party leadership has any guts or brains at all, they need to bring this show to an immediate close after Tuesday so that Obama has a clear majority of total delegates and everyone who counts can tell Hillary publicly and privately that it is time for the party to rally behind the nominee and then anyone who doesn't is not welcome.

LibRef, my apologies for misrepresenting you. I thought I had read that not only were you abandoning HRC but that you had moved your support into the Obama column.

Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a superdelegate who has been at the forefront of calling for uncommitted Democrats to make a choice soon after the last vote, said in an interview that Mrs. Clinton called him last week and urged him to “keep an open mind until the convention.”

As I have said, the woman is batshit crazy. What next: keep an open mind until November? What could be going through the Govs. head? He had to be polite on the phone, but his leaking this information is essentially saying "Lord, the woman is nuts" while maintaining plausible deniability.

Thanks woody

We need open minds in the sense of minds that are open to reality and reality-checks.  But, please, not minds that are "open" to the obsessional possibility that something utterly screwy will happen and therefore we don't want to have Clinton pissed at us.

henderstock

You are so right about that. If Bloomberg wants that seat, it's his.

Brother, while I thought you were carrying some of the vitriol, the point of the post was directed at the people in the article, the ones who would never vote for BO, or even vote against him, out of spite. And you misunderstood me, McCain (and Brownback) will PICK the next SCOTUS justice, likely Stevens replacement.

Irony, I think somehow a national campaign rally at the site of the GOP convention is a huge 'come out fighting' moment, both slapping down HRC and McCain at the same time. In fact, I like it a lot. Its also putting a stake in the ground for the Supers, be on board or miss the train. No more fence sitting.

"As I’ve written many times, Hillary believes with every fiber of her being that Obama is going to lose this year. (And so does her husband.)"

If this is true, then both Hill and Bill are far less politically astute than we've given them credit for being.

Chmclean: Bite your tongue. I like Michael Crowley. I was referring to any number of posters out here. Agree or disagree with any TNR staffers, I do not regard a one of them as foolish. Reader-bloggers, however, are another matter.

Hillary's campaign has become a sad commentary on 60s style "feminism." The scab is off the wound and the sight is not pretty. "Inadequate black male;" 60s style feminists in their self-righteousness see no irony whatsoever in channeling racism in order to promote their "cause." We now know them for what they are. They are "progressive" on "racial matters" so long as blacks are scrubbing the floors of their kitchens. The goal for 60s style feminists was never social justice or greater social equality for all marginalized populations, but merely the venting of their personal grievances so self-promotion and personal gain. As Hillary said, in effect, to the Washington superdelegates after losing in North Carolina: "Vote for me because I'm white." The old feminists who support Hillary are not opposed to white male patriarchy, they are just upset that they don't benefit from a larger share of white privilege. Apparently you don't have to scratch too deeply before the inner Klan comes to the surface.  

After that hideous reactionary performance of pro-Hillary protesters, who cares if they are are "angry at us"? Get a grip; these are not social progressives. They are closer to the tradition of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and David Duke. It is foolish to treat these yahoos with kid gloves ("oh, gee golly -- I sure don't want a bunch of feminist racists to be mad at us...").

This ugly spectacle that the Clintonistas have put on is the sad exclamation point at the end of what was once the Clinton legacy. Clintonism will not go down in the history books as the politics of inclusion, but rather the politics of narcissism, racism, and narrow self-interest.

Imagine the "fury" that the compromise "unleashed." How dare the Democrats refuse to go along 100% with Hillary's campaign to change the rules of the game after the game has been played and she has lost by the previous rules that she had agreed to? How dare they not reward her by simply handing her a nomination that she has not earned? What happened to female victimhood? What happened to white privilege? Fury, fury indeed. It is the fury of the child who throws a temper tantrum when he or she doesn't get her way.

Matthawk: You are as unhinged as any number of Hillary supporters. As I have been saying, people like you are more interested in venting your silly little spleens than in building coalitions and bridges.

you go Matt.

"Clintonism will not go down in the history books as the politics of inclusion, but rather the politics of narcissism, racism, and narrow self-interest."

Matthawk, you fight fire with fire only if you just care about who gets burned more.  You fight fire with water if you're interested in putting out the flames.

Hillary:  Not now, not in '12, not ever.  Ask yourself what Hillary and her supporters would have done were the circumstances reversed and she were in Obama's shoes.  Would she be as magnanimous as Mr. Obama?  Would she politely step aside?   Of course not.  Bye, Hillary.

Would Hillary have been as magnanimous in Chicago as Obama was when he knocked Alice Palmer off the ballot? Oops, sorry Obamaphiles, bad example.

No, good example.  He knocked Palmer off the ballot by using the rules.  Hillary in contrast wants the rules bent to her advantage.

Good point, irony. I don't see the argument rabid Obama-haters like LR make about Alice Palmer, et al. To paraphrase "The Princess Bride," I do not think they make the point they think they make.

"I do not think they make the point they think they make."

I know, but it's fun watching them anyhow.

WoodyBombay: Once again I am surprised by you. Maybe you have been partaking of too much ale as of late to get a good take on my posts. I am far more against the Obama sycophants out here than I am against Obama himself. I am highly sceptical of the Barackster but I am willing to give him a second and third look-in, as I wrote here very recently. I approach issues and candidates in a nuanced, dialectical and (often) ambivalent manner, something entirely foreign to so many of the Obama half-tracks out here.