Mr. Chotiner

1. If you don't know the exact circumstances Greenberg is writing about how about learning them before blogging?

2. You spell combative wrong. If she had won PA by 15 and NC by one, you can bet the superdelegates would not have swung his way the way they did. After Wisconsin, she needed the political equivalent of a four of a kind to win. Between Rev. Wright and her performance, she drew a full house.  If you can name one presidential candidate who dropped out while he/she was still winning primaries I'll buy you and Mr. Chait a weekend in the Bahamas.

3. Your #3 point is completely incoherent. She is a hero to millions. So was Hart. So was Udall. It makes perfect sense. You say this is a unique situation that calls for delicate handling and yet you're expressing over-the-top outrage because she gave one last defiant speech and then waited a whole four days to concede. So much for delicate handling. I'd suggest some kind of art therapy to help you deal with the hole in your life now that Hillary is out of the race.

Mr. Chotiner

1. If you don't know the exact circumstances Greenberg is writing about how about learning them before blogging?

2. You spell combative wrong. If she had won PA by 15 and NC by one, you can bet the superdelegates would not have swung his way the way they did. After Wisconsin, she needed the political equivalent of a four of a kind to win. Between Rev. Wright and her performance, she drew a full house.  If you can name one presidential candidate who dropped out while he/she was still winning primaries I'll buy you and Mr. Chait a weekend in the Bahamas.

3. Your #3 point is completely incoherent. She is a hero to millions. So was Hart. So was Udall. It makes perfect sense. You say this is a unique situation that calls for delicate handling and yet you're expressing over-the-top outrage because she gave one last defiant speech and then waited a whole four days to concede. So much for delicate handling. I'd suggest some kind of art therapy to help you deal with the hole in your life now that Hillary is out of the race.

It's over Mr. Chotiner and your posts attacking Hillary and those of your colleagues are merely keeping alive the anger many Hillary supporters feel.

In the end Obama can't afford to piss off Hillary's supporters while Hillary couldn't care less how Obama and his base feel since she won't be running for President.

Tell you friends at the magazine to tone down their criticism of Hillary it if they won’t those who supported her to be reconciled to the idea of voting for Obama.

Much as I am personally ready to back BO in November, I cannot resist making my own three points here.

1) A fine example of a historical circumstance where a Dem primary did not end untill the convention may be found as late as 1980, when Ted Kennedy pressed his case, though his bid had by then sunk far more than hers ever has throughout this entire season. Not only was he allowed to argue for a nomination without the benefit of having amassed such a large popular vote, he was even free to assert that rules had been unfair and were in need of revision (a revision that, incidentally, would have bolstered his own standing, if I may add). And somehow, despite taking a path that would surely earn her a perfect media shitstorm if she were to attempt it herself, he has remained a beloved figure in the Dem party. So much for the you-are-on-probation-and-you-had-better-drop-out-now-or-we-will-hate-you-forever finger wagging we have been so want to see on TNR in the past few months...

I should think that, given his current standing in the party, his behavior was not much resented or considered bad. I am also pretty certain that it did not cost Dems the election that year.

2) The anger of Obama supporters HAS stemmed from her refusal to concede. Simple as that. Reviewing only a handful of past posts on TNR will reveal as much.

By the way, the pissiness of Hillary supporters like myself has not stemmed from racism, misguided feminism or actions of BO himself. Rather, it has stemed from incessant demands for her to disappear before all voters have had their fair say.

3) I am not going to get into comparisons. But I gotta say, your blog is most definitely not the shining example of that careful handling you speak of.

For how long will TNR indulge in the Hillary hate - fest? Was it not about time its bloggers turned over to examining actual adversaries, namely McCain and the Republican camp?

jkolic,

Many Dems were indeed upset with Kennedy because they felt that he paved the way for Carter's loss to Reagan.  He is beloved figure in the Democratic Party because of the what he's accomplished in his 45 years in the Senate.   If Clinton puts together a career like that, then nobody will give a damn about how she handled herself this year, and she will likewise be regarded as a hero in the Democratic Party.  I hope that she does.

Peter said, "If you can name one presidential candidate who dropped out while he/she was still winning primaries I'll buy you and Mr. Chait a weekend in the Bahamas."

Not to thwart Isaac's shot at a weekend in the Bahamas, but this one is rather easy.  Mitt Romney dropped out while he was still winning primaries (he won 7 states on Super Tuesday, the last contest in which he competed), and he was fairly close to McCain in the popular vote.  He was far behind in delegates, though, after narrowly losing several states with winner-take-all or winner-take-almost-all systems.  He realized that he couldn't win, and that it would be better for his party for him to drop out and support the presumptive nominee.

David Greenberg has become a small shabby man.

Here is one of the most exciting and significant moments in Americn History--even many conservative commenters talk about the smile and the tears that Obama's speech brought--and all David can do is continue to defend Hillary atrociously selfish(and I had been a supporter) behavior.

I feel sad that David cannot savor this moment.

The Huffpost has an excellent article by Drew Weston. I pull out two non-consecutive quotes:

"They led her campaign to use tactics against a fellow Democrat they should never have used, most notably reinforcing conservative branding applied with deadly efficacy against her own party for years (e.g., painting Obama as a member of the liberal "elite," using fear tactics in her "3am" ad and images of bin Laden in another) and the kind of racially divisive politics inconceivable for a woman who, with her husband, has shown such extraordinary devotion to civil rights)...."

"But that did not excuse her failure to endorse Obama Tuesday night, and it does not excuse her refusal to leave the stage until this coming Saturday, which has effectively focused the spotlight of media attention for the entire week--Barack Obama's triumphant week--on her, instead of on the traditional biographical pieces on the victorious candidate, who deserved the full attention of the public as he reintroduced himself to the American people after a long, bruising, and divisive primary process."

Hillary folks:  you've made a good case for your being offended, I'm starting to get it through my thick head.  I'm a female who disagrees vehemently with the whole (what I see) as egregious use of feminism as a shield and a weapon.  Sorry you didn't see it that way, but loads of women out here did.  We both own that debate.  It made it hard to imposible to hear much else.  

I'm afraid I still attach nefarious motives to your candidate, that just isn't budging and I have tried.  But what I have been able to hear is the disgust and anger it can engender from a sizable chunk of rational people out there.

People have a right to be angry at Hillary and a right to be angry with those still angry with her.  Everyone's entitled here.

Sabatia you losel credibility by saying Greenberg has become a small, shabby man. All he did was offer some historical perspective. Agree, disagree, but it doesn't make him a small, shabby man. And yikes, quoting something on the Huffington Post, the newly minted Fox News of the right. I'm shocked, just shocked they hate some more on Clinton! And you probably need to take a deep breath before the general election if you're still upset about the 3am ad. That ad was about as tough as a grade school kickball game.  If running an ad saying it's 3am who would you rather having answering the phone in a time of crisis-without even mentioning your opponent-- is out of bounds, then maybe we should just let our president be chosen by Common Cause.  

For once, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I agree with Jackson. This was a very close election, and it could have easily gone HRC's way if she run a better campaign in the early months. But that's neither here nor there: It was close, it was contentious and yes Hillary is a bit of sore loser, but let it go.

Time to move on to the general election.

Declaring that your Democratic rival is not fit to be president is way out of bounds.

Comparing your campaign rival to Jesse Jackson for the purpose of disparaging him is out of bounds.

Declaring that the rules that one of your senior campaign managers -- a rules expert no less -- agreed to at your behest render the election illegitimate is out of bounds.

Declaring that your opponent has trouble winning the votes of "hard working Americans, white Americans" is out of bounds.

Declaring that you are winning a popular vote that you are in fact losing, even when you have already definitively lost it, is out of bounds.

Declaring that you are being pushed out of the race by misogynists when nothing of the kind is happening is out of bounds.

Attacking the failure of the DNC after the fact to modify the rules you agreed to sufficiently in your favor  an attack on "your voters" is out of bounds.

Giving a speech that does not merely fail to concede but can only be interpreted as a victory speech, and a condescending one at that, when you have just lost definitively is not out of bounds, it is, as blackton says, batshit insane.  Delusional.

Hillary deserves not the slightest bit of consideration from the Democratic party or its members.  Whatever the party needs from her at this point is legitimate to expect of her and if the means are there to pressure her to conform, they should be used.  That includes the expressions of disgust from rank and file members.  If Hilllary's supporters think she had the right to do one thing or another, however contrary to the party's interests and however offensive, merely because she was trying to win, then it follows that the party can do to her whatever it has the power to do -- which is plenty if she has any desire to remain in the club of her peers -- in its own interests because it is trying to win.

Comity has to flow two ways.  It there is none and it is all simply a case of everyone doing whatever they have the power to do in their own interest, then that flows two ways too.  What is truly nauseating to me (no hyperbole) is listening to all of the Hillaristas who have defended her atrocious behavior whining that they and she deserve some sort of delicate handling and excessively sensitive consideration now that her power is fled because she no longer has any prospect of being president.  Revenge would be justified, but unseemly and unnecessary.  Getting from her whatever is in the best interests of the party is entirely justified.  

That it took Rendell, 23 congressman, and 8 senators (plus who knows how many others) to explain the facts of political life to Hillary is more than enough evidence that she is and always was unsuited to be president.  The job of president is politician-in-chief, not policy-wonk-in-chief or bureacrat-in-chief.  In stunning contrast to Obama who is something of a political prodigy, Hillary demonstrates over and over that she is still learning the rudiments of political behavior.  As we should have learned with George Bush, the time to start learning the rudiments is not at your inauguration.

The fact that by her adoption of classic demagogic tactics of race-baiting and self-declared victimiziation Hillary was able to make very slight gains at the end of the race, after it was effectively over and Obama was sitting on his hands, impresses me not at all.  Hilllary is a bum.

I think the key point made above was jkolich's -- that his anger does not stem from the actions of BO himself.  In my view, if the rival to your preferred candidate behaves himself or herself (as jkolic concedes BO has done), and your anger is directed toward the rival's supporters, it is important to acknowledge that.  

BO would do well, I think, to give a speech soon in which he says that the campaign was intense, feelings were intense, and supporters on both sides would go over the top.  He then should emphasize that some of his supporters make arguments on his behalf in the blogs and on the airwaves that have been unfair or imputed motives to the Clintons without any evidence that those are their true motives, and he should request that they cease engaging in such actions.  

Usually it is the duty of the loser to admonish his or her supporters to lay down their arms and get behind the winner, but in a battle as close as this one it would behoove the winner to do so as well.  

Turning to Hillary,  I think that any fairminded observer would have to say that her speech was, at the very least, a missed opportunity to be statesmanlike, (And let's face it, neither Greenberg nor Wilentz has been fairminded when it comes to discussing this particular election--a reminder that even great historians who venture into events that are not yet history are as apt as the rest of us to resort to polemics).  

For me the key to whether she can partially redeem herself Saturday is whether she can turn to her supporters and convincingly beseech them  to abandon their hostility toward Obama.  An effective tool she can use in that regard is jkolich's point.  

She needs to say:  "I know many of you have been hurt and upset by statements that some have made to defeat my candidacy.  I am too, but let me say this:  Senator Obama himself has been nothing but fair and decent throughout this campaign. He is the one seeking to recapture the White House for the Democrats, not those supporters who may have made unfair statements.  And he should be judged on his own actions.  That's how I judge him, and he passes every character test with flying colors. I know that some of you are also disappointed about the rules governing the primary process, but let me say this:  Senator Obama played by those rules and won this contest fair and square.  When all of the dust settles after this election, I may have occasion to propose some reforms, and if you are upset about the rules, I recommend that, after this election, you too take action to institute reforms.  But this time around, we were all given the same set of rules and Senator Obama did not write them or design them; he simply followed them.  Do not transfer any of your frustration about those rules to him.....

Wandreycer is just another member of the lynch HIllary mob. The rest is commentary.

I am not a "Hillary folk," btw. Many of us who supported her did so because we thoguht she was the better candidate of the two and not because we thought she was perfect.

There is no perfection in politics, keep that in mind as you go forth into the general election season.

mpatrickhendri keep your agreements to yourself.

You are the last poster I wish to be agreed with.

jkolic,

You can continue to deny the obvious all you want, but no one in a position of importance ever demanded that Hillary retire from the race, nor did Obama or his campaign.  Overwhelmingly, Obama supporters and the party properly expected that the campaign she was running if she insisted on running it not disparage the party's inevitable nominee in terms that would be of great use to the Republican party and legitimize the Rovian behavior that Democrats have long objected to.  Hillary couldn't do that because she is a dirty politician.  No wonder Karl Rove suddenly finds much to admire in her.  She gets him off the hook.

Anyone who has been paying attention for the past few months knows that your version of events is at odds with reality.  You tell a fairy tale to justify your own pissiness and that of the rest of the oh so put upon Hillaristas.  Enjoy yourself, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

I agree with peter - the bodice ripping about the 3 am ad was overwrought.  Yes, its tired politics of fear - and in all fairness to Obama, that IS all he said about it.  He didn't even bother repeating himself.

It was the Obama people and the press that bodice ripped.  That ad was standard fair.

I agree in principle Jackson - I do think a little processing might be helpful, but then I'm in that biz.  It is time to move on.

Great post LDuncan.  I do think mostly that is what Hillary will say.

Did that 3 am ad come before or after "Not that I'M aware of?" comment on 60 minutes regarding whether Obama was a Muslim or not.  I do not remember.

I  lost trust after that because of how much it hurt one of my oldest and dearest friends (Muslim-American, raised in Guyana).  She's several years older than me and was a Hillary worshipper for years.  She felt totally betrayed.

Anyway, the only reason I ask is not to debate this again.  

I'm trying to create an informal  timeline of the mistrust cascade, to use in my own work somehow (not now, maybe not for years).  Maybe bad moitives were applied to that comment, and you are right - but it does not seem unreasonable or irrational to have interpreted that as being thrown under the bus if you are a Muslim. It seemed that she was playing on the fear of Muslims at worst, not sticking up for Muslim Americans at best, especially women - who adored her.

Does this seem fair to you?  Not looking to be attacked please.

lduncan, well said.

"You can continue to deny the obvious all you want, but no one in a position of importance ever demanded that Hillary retire from the race, nor did Obama or his campaign."

Here come the denials.

Too bad  HIllary supporters won't be buying your bullshit, Rodo.

Jackson, I was about to agree with your observation, but then I saw your retort to mrpatrick.  Of course, he did not suggest that YOU agree with him; but only said that he agreed with you - slightly different connotation, suggesting a willingness to comprehend a valid viewpoint regardless of its provenance: the mark of an independent and interesting mind.  

One thing you said was, indeed, interesting: "while Hillary couldn't care less how Obama and his base feel since she won't be running for President".  You're right.  So far, she has demonstrated that she "couldn't care less" unless "she's running for President."  I thought - paint me naïve or stupid on this score - I thought that this was not about HER, but about the American people.  I thought the idea was to get rid of the Republicans.  I thought ... but, if you are right, this is about Hillary not about getting rid of Bush and his legacy.  Ifyou are right, "she couldn't care less" if we get four more years of monumental incompetence and cronyism.  If you are right, so is Roid's assessment of the Clintons' cynicism. ...

Be that as it may, after yesterday's announcements, and despite all that Mrs. Clinton and her husband have done to drive me away from supporting her, I think it is time to set this issue aside.  

The speech was graceless, as has been the entire campaign.  But, no man or woman must be denied the chance at redemption.  Let her then take that step, and let us then set the issue of her comportment aside, if indeed her support materialises and she actively seeks to reunify the Party.  And I hope, for the good not only of the United States but for the rest of us outside who need a sane leader in the White House, that Jackson's assessment of Mrs. Clinton's motivations are incorrect.

Wandreycer1 said: "I agree in principle Jackson - I do think a little processing might be helpful, but then I'm in that biz.  It is time to move on"

Yea, time to move on, me to vote for McCain,  you to join an anti-McCain lynch mob.

Have  a great day.

Seriously, are the Obama-supporters on TNR's staff clinging to their Hillary bashing because they fear Obama won't look so great after she's a non-issue?  They doubt their ability to write interesting stuff about real issues?  I've made fun that they are obsessed and there's more than a soupcon of misogyny to these endless posts (except in Marty Peretz case, where it's obviously true), but really, why does this go on?  

Wandrey: trying to find purpose or intent in a statement is in the realm either of psychology or ESP; being neither a psychologist nor a mind-reader and being severely allergic to both disciplines, my own sense, for what it is worth, is to keep away from trying to understand "why" and instead try to place the comment in its specific context.

I am not Muslim and, in any event, have developed quite a thick skin about this kind of comment, so I cannot judge if it would be hurtful - I guess one can feel betrayed at any thing these days.  BUT - and this is the point Roid has been making with which I am in total agreement - it was impolitic.  It was impolitic not because of its impact on Muslim-Americans, but because of the specific context in which it was uttered: we all saw the interview with the WV woman.  There is the fear that he is a Mecca-rian Candidate; the fear has some (remote) basis in fact (his father, his name); the fear is being stoked by nasty elements in the Republican Party (through a snake-and-ladder game of Guilt by Association: Jeremiah Wright likes Farrakhan, Farrakhan is head of the Nation of Islam (nothing to do with Islam other than the name), so be belonging to a Christian Church with ties to a non-Muslim cult of personality the Nation of Islam, Obama becomes a hidden Muslim sympathizer), etc.); and by that simple qualifier (so natural to a lawyer but so deadly to a politician) - "as far as I know" - Hillary appeared to confirm all the fears.

I don't really care about her motivation; the statement was bad politics for the Democratic Party.  If, as Jackson says, Hillary does not care about what happens to the Democrats, then the statement makes some sense.  Otherwise, not.  Therein lies the roots of the mistrust.

Wow - breaking news, Hillary super-delegate got call from high level campaign person to discuss using racially divisive tactics - they wanted up tension between blacks and jews in this case:

Whoa.

www.nj.com/.../superdelegate_says_clinton_cam.html

Jackson: your "lynch mob" trope is really tiresome.  An organised opposition to a candidate within a political process is not a lynch mob.  It's called a "political party".  Like the Democratic Party.  But then, you, like Lieberman, do not understand the concept.  Let's hope Mrs. Clinton does.

LDuncan and Wandrey have got it right.  I trust Obama and Clinton to handle this well in the days ahead, and the rest of us will then move on.

Neil

That's both astonishing and not, wandrey.  On the one hand, that Clinton was actively cultivating racism and trying to exploit ethnic tension and stoke division is pretty obvious.  On the other hand, when they are caught doing so so unambiguously, without even the possibility of plausible deniability, relying, as it were, only on the "cover of darkness" the extent of her cynicism still takes your breath away.  Just when I think I am so cynical that nothing can surprise me about a Clinton, something does.  There is seemingly no bottom.

Icarus, super job.

Let's all hope that Hillary shows us on Saturday that she does have the capability of being a good politician and that there is no need to deconstruct her speech to ID all the snark.  Then she can be forgiven and we can all move on.  Lymon will be relieved it seems.

I couldn't join a lynch mob against John McCain if my life depended on it.  

I adore the man, have met he and Cindy twice.  They are both (especially she, who does amazing, courageous non profit work with very little fanfair) simply great Americans.

Wandrey: didn't this guy lose to Lautenberg, and isn't Lautenberg like 200 years old?  At this point, this kind of revelation is not helpful.  If he is serious, he should have fessed up before Pennsylvania.  Right now, he is pulling a McClellan.  Obama, and the rest of us, should just say "Aha" and move on.

Oh I agree icarusr, I'm glad Obama had no comment.  

But it strikes me as attacking the messenger by dismissing him - and by default the importance of what he is saying just because he lost.  

First of all, Lautenberg is the ultimate made guy in Jersey, he's like Beezlebub - you will never budge him until he keels over.  Which be be long after you and I do.

This is independent corroboration of Hillary's campaign deliberately using racial divineness as a strategy.  This is not some blogger or hacked off Obama staffer, editorialist, sexist beast commentator.  This is a guy who stayed a Hillary superdelegate, who is speaking of one specific thing. He knows what he is doing.

Talk about mobs - TNR was inundated with mobs denouncing anyone who even had the audacity to suggest that racial divisiveness was a deliberate strategy of Hillary's, as if it wasn't as clear as the nose on your face.  You know this guy is going to be buried with personal attacks within the hour.  Maybe Bill will call him a scumbag too.

That historian guy?  Sean whats his name? And all of those unhinged responses?  Oy.  Hillary people still deny it.  It won't change anything at all and I still think we should move forward and know we will, it just IS quite noteworthy.

I wonder if anyone else will come forward.

Roid-

I admit, I had to take a couple of minutes to consider whether I should bother writing you a reply since I have long noticed that you dismiss in advance any comment made by those not as hostile to Hillary as yourself. But what can I say, I can never resist responding in a debate even when I know that the retort stands little chance of a fair hearing.

First off, nowhere in my post did I say that those of political importance clamored for Hillary to get out. Reread it closely and you will notice that I actually asserted that it was Obama supporters who wished for her exit. This, to clarify in case you see no meaningful difference, refers to many of the TNR posters/writers who reasoned that her staying was pointless as well as harmful to the party and, to an extent, the media. And really, if you attempt to deny that no blogs/articles/comments in the Talkback section expressed such sentiments in recent months, you will be the one telling fairy tales.

Secondly, you would do well to not run amok with the Hillarista label. It is awfully presumptious of you to so mindlessly attach it to me at least - I have been a moderate HRC supporter who never indulged in Obama hate-fests. For your record (in case you even bother to keep one, though I suspect you make not the slightest effort to differentiate between Hillary supporters), I praised the way Obama handled the Wright controversy, wholeheartedly agreed with his remarks on the bitterness of many Americans and repeatedly stated that manufactured scandals over flag lapel pins and the Ayers connection were downright ridiculous. Nor am I pissy with his victory because I happen to be rational enough to concede that he did run a better campaign and that Hillary essentially brought the loss upon herself by not having a post-Super-Tuesday strategy planned out. (Ultimately, anyone who tosses 13 successive states in the lap of the opponent in a tight race can expect to be defeated and rightly so. She is no exception.) Thus, you would do well to hold off on stereotyping untill the person has actually fit the mold - in my case, altogether.

Lastly, I would be very appreciative if you condescended to take one of the two following options regarding my posts - a) read them carefully, not attaching sentiments/words you figure inherent to comments of any Hillary supporter and then wrote civilized replies free of vitriol and presumption, or b) avoided them altogether. I will own I generally find your thoughts interesting and insightful as it seems to me that you have an extensive background (perhaps practical experience?) in terms of politics (if I am wrong feel free to correct me). But really, if you cannot avoid incorporating causting attacks in your replies, I think it best we ignore one another on future threads.

Lduncan - you interpretation of my post is right on the money. Great post. And Wandreycer1, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It really is time to move on.

I don't know why everyone thinks that the only Clinton haters are Obama supporters, as though no Republican has expressed any doubts about Hillary anywhere on the media or on blogs. The idea that Hillaryistas are now going to vote for a man who has spent the past 6 months trying to join the vast right wing conspiracy amuses me to no end. Gloria Steinam and Sean Hannity together at last, with Hannity being the clear winner.

Jkolic,

This isn't worth a big spat, to say the least, but if you don't want to be painted with a broad brush, then you cannot paint with one:  You say this:

"The anger of Obama supporters HAS stemmed from her refusal to concede. Simple as that. Reviewing only a handful of past posts on TNR will reveal as much.

By the way, the pissiness of Hillary supporters like myself has not stemmed from racism, misguided feminism or actions of BO himself. Rather, it has stemed from incessant demands for her to disappear before all voters have had their fair say."

When you characterize "the anger of Obama supporters" as being either uniform or motivated by what you insist is the motivation, you A) lump a lot of people together and B) brush aside what many Obama supporters say, myself included, -- i.e., that we object vehemently to the manner in which she has campaigned, not to the fact that she has campaigned, as meaningless.  You tell us what we THINK, while ignoring what we say.  I indeed do have practical political experience and I don't find it objectionable at all that people run and run to the end.  I do find certain campaign tactics objectionable, whether the person using them is still in contention or not, but certainly when used by one Democrat against a fellow Democrat.  You can disagree with what I say as much as you like, but don't tell me what I actually THINK as an excuse for your disagreement.

On the flipside, you then ell us about what is motivating some large group of Hillary supporters, again denying what is being said about Hillary as the victim of sexism, etc.  Again, you incorporate an awful lot  of people with your brush and you justify what they say -- which you seem not to agree with -- based on your own estimation of what they THINK.

I prefer to deal with people's public acts rather than with assumptions about what they are thinking and to argue, agree, object, whatever, based on their public acts.  Otherwise, discussion becomes impossible as none of us has access to anyone else's private thoughts.

There is also, however, the matter of a peculiar double-standard.  You don't seem to think that Obama's supporters have any reason to be "pissy" about the manner in which she campaigned, and you completely discount that they do.  At the same time, you describe yourself as pissy about what you claim are demands, not by Obama or his campaign, but by his supporters, over whom he has no control, that she withdraw.  This is very peculiar.  You think that the public has no right to raise objections to the candidates' behavior or place demands on the candidates who, after all, are holding themselves out and asking for the votes of the public.  Yet you think that there should be constraints on what members of the public can express as their opinions, even when there are is no bigotry or other socially unacceptable conduct involved.  Why, for example, is asking that a candidate retire from the campaign not legitimate if it would in fact be to the benefit of the party and the candidate herself has nothing to gain?  What is out of bounds about that as a political tactic?  That it makes you pissy? Is it acceptable for Hillary Clinton to say that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president but unacceptable for a voter to say Hillary Clinton, if she is a loyal Democrat, she end her campaign?  How could that possibly be the standard for acceptable political discourse?

I will confess to being impatient.  Sometimes, maybe far too often, I simply do not take the time carefully to unpack the claims or arguments made by others that I take issue with before making clear just what parts I find problematic.  And I can be caustic because it facilitates brevity.  If I offended you, I apologize.  I will exercise greater care in your direction in the future.

And yes, I do have practical experience at running Democratic campaigns and winning them in my locality in NYS.

Peace.

wandrey, you are right about Cindy McCain, she has done great work to bring healthcare to pacific islanders. And pretty much noboody but them know about it. I am convinced that John McCain wants to win straight up, will bend over backwards not to inject race into this race. Even though he won early, he got a huge assist from Huckabee, who knows what would have happened if Romney won Iowa, but McCain never threw Hispanics under the bus, not even when he most would have benefited from it.

Yes Blackton, McCain is wily fox - clumsy sometimes and I hate 95% of his politics, but he should never be underestimated.  I wish his economic policy proposals were not so moronic, lets not even talk about the rest of it.  I still deeply admire him.  What can I say, I was raised by military men who revere him.  

Cindy has worked with the poorest of poor children for 20 years, provided them homes, medicine, surgery, adoption - even disabled kids.   She has never looked for attention for it and has signaled that she will continue along this vein. She's a class act.

McCain will not go racial.  After what his daughter went through, he'd quit the race first.  He can sell his soul with the best of em (his NRA posturing makes me ill), but he does not have that race baiting in him.

jkolic,

I promise you that I am not trying to beat a dead horse and I honestly am moving on - but I just have to ask once so I really can do this moving on thing:

How do you feel about what that Hillary superdelegate said?  Does it bother you at all?

Either way, I am already ON, promise - I just have to know.

(I hope it helps you understand some of the on-going rage from this side of the divide, if not - then we just do not understand each other.  But who cares, that is OK too - let's just beat McCain).

Isaac, have you been reading the posts out here? The Hillary-haters despise every thing about her, not just her speech earlier this week.

Yeah, pretty much everything about her, her incompetence, her voting record, her lack of accomplishment, her race-baiting, her tin-ear, her lies,  Yeah, I don't like any of it.  But that's the last time I am going to repeat the litany of Hillary Clinton's failings because, no matter what she does no Saturday, she is history (as in the in the past kind).

"The Hillary-haters despise every thing about her, not just her speech earlier this week."

NOT TRUE.  Love the hair; ecstatic about the pantsuits; absolutely DIE for the pearls.  And those "You knows" - why, just Wunderbar.

Now, some original thought please, as this "Hillary-hater" schtick is fast becoming like JD's "Jew-hater".  

Wandreycer1: agreed, very disappointing news. thank you for sharing.

Roid-

Thanks for your response. I will try to be as concise as possible, especially given the fact that the website appears to have timed me out the first time I attempted to reply to you.

No, I do not paint all Obama supporters with the same brush. However, looking back on my words, I can see how I could come off as lumping them together with  no distinctions. For this I apologize, especially since I seem to recall you stating that HRC ought to be allowed to run untill the primaries have ended and she has lost fairly and squarely (a stance that I, incidentally, happened to share). Likewise, I am fully aware of the fact that rather than begrudging her the right to stay in the race, many Obama supporters have instead complained of the tenor of her campaign - a complaint that I by no means consider to be out of bounds. You will find me as firm a supporter of the First Amendment as the next person, particularly when it comes to the right of the public to voice its opinions regarding behaviors/actions of its supposed servants.

I will go further and tell you that I fully agree with the notion that fellow Dems should refrain from attacking one another. Many a time have I, in fact, shuddered at her apparent lack of grace myself. (One moment that stands out particularly goes back to that infamous pre-Pennsylvania debate where the candidates were asked whether they thought their rival could win GE and Obama unequivocally affirmed he had always thought her capable of getting into the White House whereas she stalled untill pressed into giving an answer - a reluctant yes, at that). Of course that constraints ought to exist in terms of campaign tactics. I have frequently wished her political machine had respected certain norms a bit more...

Concerning the Clinton supporters, yes, I am sure plenty are now decrying her defeat and chalking it up to sexism. I am not one of them, though I do not think this primary season has by any means been free of a certain degree of chauvinism. As I have explained earlier, I rather find her loss to ultimately be the fault of a lack of good political game and speak merely for those Hillary voters who feel the same way (and I assure, they are aplenty). I had never intended to speak of all Clintonites in a lump-sum fashion and I apologize for coming off as if I had.

To summarize - yes, Obama supporters are different from one another. Some have believed she should drop out merely because she could not win, some have simply gotten pissy because of her attacks on Obama. Likewise, some Clinton supporters think she lost due to sexism whereas others are convinced that she was fundamentally defeated via her own tone-deaf political strategies. My generalizations were never meant to paint masses on both sides of the divide with one brush - I have made them in the mere interest of brevity but will certainly strive to qualify my posts in the future since I do see merit in your criticism. I do hope, though, that my own efforts to avoid presuming your thoughts will be reciprocated by a similar intent on your end since, as you can hopefully tell, I really do not judge this situation as you have initially interpreted me to.  

By the way - thanks for the clarification regarding your political experience. I am not at all surprised that you ran for an office since your posts always seem particularly knowledgeable and informative on the subject of campaigning.

Wandreycer1 and Blackton,

Thanks for posting that informative little tidbit regarding Cindy McCain. I gotta admit, she always struck me as the Valium-popping Stepford Wife and I am glad to be disabused of that notion.

Wandrey, which Hillary superdelegate statement are you exactly referring to? Sorry for not providing an immediate answer, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page before I launch into a response.

I should think I have a fair idea of what has fueled the rage on your end of the divide. At any rate, I am confident we can understand one another since our ideologies appear much too similar to allow for too much misunderstanding. And yes, beating McCain is an absolute priority right now. I could not agree with you more on that one.

Thanks, jkolic

Roid: You just thanked a poster who opined that Democrats should refrain from attacking other Democrats? You must be on the flat plain between your grand mals.

Intelligent, thoughtful posts are always welcome, liberal.  I don't have to agree with every word to appreciate them.  

You really are obsessed with me, aren't you liberal?  But, don't worry, you CAN succeed in gaining my respect if you can manage to behave like the civilized gentleman you constantly claim to be. Your reading list does not impress, however.  The ability to say something original and interesting would.

Erroroid: You get to be the mad hatter, belching hatred and acting as the p.c. cop on the beat and I get to be civil. What a deal, r. Try again. As for me being obsessed, more projection. You followed me around on various threads, jumping in on the side of those contending against me. Have you ever spent time in an institution (other than a bank)? I am beginning to wonder.

The spittle is flying from your mouth again, liberal.  Try to calm down and write ten posts in a row that do not spontaneously and gratuitously refer to me.  Perhaps your obsessive ideation will relax its grip a bit.

Hemerrhoid: You embody a certain Zeitgeist out here, so I am not just taking you on, though you are the most egregious blogger boy of them all.

Breathe deeply, liberal.  Imagine a tropical island, cool breezes, the lapping of the waves .  .  .

The other week you were the one spitting bullets and calling me vile names and you tell me to calm down? Again, you are a piece of work. I am entirely calm when I post, even more, I sit her smiling as I contemplate the latest roid lunacy. Obviously, it is necessary for you to fantsize otherwise.

So much, invective, so little time.

Your emotional distress is evident in your writing, liberal.  It is clear that you don't see that or you would be too embarrassed to say the things you do.  But, trust me, everyone else sees it.

Asteroid: You have a lot of fantasies, do you not? I have learned a lot from people like you, from arrogant know-it--alls (who is the consummate boaster?). I know to inquire and not just assume. People are always amazed at how calm I am even in trying times. You don't rise to the level of a boil on the backside, so don't flatter yourself. I am not roid rage, no matter how much you wish for it. At least ironyroid has enough brains to see that I can operate on different levels simultaneously. After that, the candlepower goes out because to him, my capaciousness is an insincerity, when it actually is nothing of the sort. Call me a parallel processor, call you Bobbsey twins linear processors. And lest you think that I am "boasting" again, I am nothing as compared to the p.p. known as "williamyard". Speaking of which, you say that I know nothing ( about a ridiculously baseless a charge as there ever was) and when I rise to counter this and cite some (a miniscule amount) of what I know, you come at me from another direction and crown me for boasting. How could your parents stand you when you were growing up? Or, my man, is home where you learned how to be the "roid"?

Yes, several levels simultaneously -- gutter, sewer, and first grade.  Capacious.

"After that, the candlepower goes out because to him, my capaciousness is an insincerity, when it actually is nothing of the sort."

I never said it was insincerity!  Please.  It's more like a dark engine room in which the machinery of wit clanks away without being connected to humor.  The complete lack of anything resembling personality is what's eerie.  On the one hand, the over-formal syntax suggests a fear of social dismissal, a kind of obsessive desire to prove education, intellectual ability, and the like.  On the other, the misspelling of 'receive' as 'recieve' happened twice within roughly three days -- an unlikely typo for a native English speaker, and certainly almost impossible to do twice and not catch it.  Deliberate?  Maybe, but why?

Something of the "theory of mind" is nibbling at me -- the concept that people who suffer from e.g. autism have failed to grasp the basic principle -- which we generally achieve at the age of four or five -- that other people also have a unique inner self, a complete world-view, that's different from ours and that what we have to do is negotiate with them on that basis.

The strikingly unfunny remarks that clearly aim at being comic.  The ironic sallies that have no grasp of irony.  The undertone of contempt that leaks out all over the shop.  It's all very peculiar.

Roid,

Our exchange has by now been buried on this thread, but in case you are still attending to it, thank you as well.

Ironyroad, I rather like this sentence of yours - Other people also have a unique inner self, a complete world-view, that is different from ours and what we have to do is negotiate with them on that basis. How very true. I must say, staying aware of it at all times has proven rather challenging to many of us.

My pleasure, really.

jkolic, I agree about the challenge -- sometimes exchange in this form can get more than a bit narcissistic, as we each fixate on our reflection (our posts) in the stream of the thread.