Noam, you write:

"Obama [..] also [took] about a quarter of the white vote. That stacks up pretty well alongside Hillary's 36 percent and Edwards's 29--well enough that Nora O'Donnell of MSNBC could call it "almost a three-way split"'

A typo may have led to a wrong interpretation here. Edwards didnt get 29 percent of the white vote - he got 39%. The current update of the exit poll actually has Edwards 40%, Clinton 36%, Obama 24%. "Almost a three-way split" that is not.

I'm sorry, I have a second correction too. You write, "Hillary's unclassy refusal to congratulate Obama in her first post-primary appearance in Tennessee". But I watched her speech streamed on cnn.com, and right after thanking her hosts and a number of other people, she started her speech proper with congratulating Obama. It was a bit rushed, between commas so to say, but she did say it: "and you know, I want to congratulate Senator Obama".

Nevertheless I am glad that she was beaten both among blacks (by Obama, 78 to 19 according to the updated exit poll) *and* among whites (by Edwards, by 40 to 36). Failing to come first in either constituency should go some way to throwing a monkey wrench in the Clintons' narrative trying to put Obama in a racialized corner as "the black candidate". That would have worked a lot better if Hillary had actually won at least the white vote, but she lost that too - just to Edwards.

"Instead, the opposite is happening--he's being hailed as someone who can appeal to all demographics. "

Good lord, someone's drinking a whole bunch of Koolaid. The man won 80% of the black vote and 1 in 4 of the white vote. In no way at all can this be spun as "appealing to all demographics".  

Late deciders broke for Edwards. If Edwards hadn't been in the race, Hillary would have almost certainly won, or it would have been a very straightforward racial split.

i agree with jmkerr, i don't think getting 1/4th of the white vote is "appealing to all demographics."  and although perhaps the 40-36% difference between edwards and clinton is negligible, i think it would be a stretch to say there was a three way tie.

nonetheless, obama did quite impressively overall.

"If Edwards hadn't been in the race, Hillary would have almost certainly won, or it would have been a very straightforward racial split."

Okay, Obama got 55% of the total vote. If Hillary got every Edwards vote, she still would have lost. And besides, without additional polling, how do we know that those Edwards voters would have supported Hillary over Obama? Just because you happen to support a white candidate doesn't mean you would support any white candidate over any black one.

Agree with jmkerr and lyther.

I'm not in Hillary's camp, and I find Edwards to be unbearably light, but you guys really need to put down that Kool-Aid and show a little more professionalism here.

Obama's not anywhere close to closing the sale.

Has it occurred to you that the main issue in the general will now certainly be the financial system's meltdown, and that BHO's ascents into vapor-land will seem more than a little ridiculous next to the very detailed, savvy, calm and cool proposals that Romney will put forth?

Tep,

"<i>BHO's ascents into vapor-land will seem more than a little ridiculous next to the very detailed, savvy, calm and cool proposals that Romney will put forth?</i>"

That's assuming, of course, that Romney gets the nomination.  It will be embarrassing for him, when he makes it to the MA primary, to see himself lose his own state's GOP vote.  MA will go for McCain, just as NH did.  And then, once the country wakes up and wonders why the former Gov.'s OWN PARTY won't support him...?

To be clear, my view in the wake of the news and the statements coming from Wall Street-- banks no longer lending to banks, the gold-plated super-savvy trading houses racking up unseen-before losses AND THEN DOUBLING THEIR OWN ESTIMATES OF THEIR LOSSES within weeks-- plus the fact that slashing rates now only cuts the legs out from under an already-weak dollar-- mean that this campaign is now going to turn on the financial economy.

Which has become hideously complex, and not susceptible to the usual BS from the political class.  When new Citibank senior mgmt issue statements that there's a sh*tstorm to come in the consumer credit and auto-loan markets, both of which the nation's largest bank is now beginning to pull back from with all due haste, you've got a hellish situation that will only become more, not less, prominent in this campaign as we go into the general.

I agree that Obama would probably easily defeat McCain, given the latter's admitted weakness on economics. But the Repubs would be stupid not to choose Romney. He's head and shoulders above all the other campaigns on economics, and his latest retooling is merely a revision to type for him. That's his sweet spot, and he'd be difficult to beat if 1) he keeps addressing middle Americans with clever and bold proposals couched in language people understand, as he did in Michigan, and 2) GOPers are smart enough to give him the nod.

Obama did very, very well among women. Women saved Hilary in New Hampshire and Nevada. Has something changed? Race and youth aside, I think something has - although I don't know how important it will be in February. Hillary was the object of sexist comments from the media and Edwards in New Hampshire, particularly following her tearful moment. In South Carolina, I believe the Clinton camgaign crossed a line - and she stopped being a woman candidate and joined the ranks of "wives of" Presidents - such as Isabel Perón, etc etc , for more than one voter. Her emphasis on her vast experienced can always be a two-edged sword, since only her tenure as Senator from NY is purely "hers."  As Bill Clinton has reminded people that he is not known to be a person who always speaks the truth, he has reminded everyone that one of the reasons she is in politics is because she is his wife. As a presidential candidate, who will be running - Senator Clinton or Mrs. Clinton? Running as Mrs. Clinton, she could lose a great deal of appeal among women voters, who might then actually LOOK at her voting record as Senator - Iraq, Iran, Patriot act, etc, positions that are NOT necesarrily  conducive to winning over women's votes. In other words, for several reasons, including her standing among women voters, Bill's role could backfire for her. Whether this occurs soon enough to substantially influence  Super Tuesday remains to be seen - but could definitely hurt her chances in November.  Then there's the famous "Latino " vote business.  Obama made inroads into this vote in South Carolina, and as a "diversity" candidate could pick up even more. After all, how many presidential candidates out there have LIVED the experience of being an immigrant in a nation whose language you initially do not speak, as he has in Indonesia? A significant factor once again is time, whether he has enough time before Super Tuesday. But I am more and more convinced that he has a much better chance of beating the Republicans tin November than Hillary does.

A cooler head at the Politico (www.politico.com/.../8128.html) saw things under the right light, INHO. The chattering class is going to go on over-drive about a totally predictable Obama victory and be shocked when on Super-Tuesday, none of his purported strength in SC is on display and he get crushed.

From the Politico on how Obama won:

"There is no mistaking, however, that just as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York could not have won New Hampshire or Nevada without the overwhelming support of white women, Obama could not have won South Carolina without the overwhelming support of blacks.

He won the same percentage of African-Americans that he did in Nevada last week. But blacks cast 15 percent of the votes in Nevada — and more than half of the votes in South Carolina.

That white voters split between the three leading Democratic candidates made the black vote especially consequential."

Obama also benefitted from a lack of gender gap between black men and black women, with both backing him equally. Clinton had hoped that her outsized strength among white women might translate to their black counterparts.

A big win is a big win -- IF Obama can use this to create momentum and start getting at least, say, 1/3 of the white vote, it's huge.  But we're at Clinton's nuclear option: if South Carolina makes an impression on white voters nationwide that Obama won by black identity politics, it will either a) help Clinton or b) fail to save Clinton, but will help McCain (if he's the nominee).

The last polls had Obama doing 2% better than Clinton versus John McCain.  But Hillary has nowhere to go with indies and GOP voters but up.  Obama's more in-flux, but I suspect without the Clintons as a foil his warts start to show more and he goes down.

In other words, who knows!  

dcshungu: Still playing the race card, huh?  You - the Clinton machine, that is - are shameless. You've all been cleverly insinuating race, hoping that the Obama campaign defends by engaging in it.  That way, he'll look like Sharpton or Jackson in the eyes of white America.

Here you are, trumpeting racial fault lines with glee and trying to dismiss Obama's victory as race-tainted. Didn't he win the white vote in Iowa - both genders - solidly? What about the indie white vote in New Hampshire, the rural white vote in Nevada or the under 30 white vote in every electioned state?

The race card is not being played is your claim. Well, sleaze..er I mean slick Willie put a lie to that last night with his Jesse Jackson quip.

People, get it together!  Both Obama and Clinton will lose to McCain in the general election.  He will get more independents who see him as honest, experienced and seperated enough from the Bush policies that he won't be burdened by them.  And Romney is a smooth-talking tactician whose knowledge of the marketplace could be formidable as well.  

John Edwards has been fighting for the dying middle class, the soil where the hopes of America are grown, for his entire adult life.  His policies are the ones the other two have been "borrowing".  His mantle of changing the nature of politics and the state of Washington's status quo is the original.

Obama is inspiring, true.  He speaks well and brings a lot to the table in terms of charisma, inspiring new voters, and bringing an energized crowd to its feet.  But his lack of foreign policty and economic experience, coupled with his hypocrisy of decrying politics as usual while playing politics as usual is unfortunate.  He, too, will have to' dance with the ones who brung him'.  

Clinton is a Clinton is a Clinton.  They had their time and left too many things undone -- granted for a lot of Republican obstructionist reasons, but undone nonetheless.  We don't need more Clinton-bashing and we certainly don't need someone who will rally Republicans to the polls in droves.  No more political dynasties, please.  And again... 'dancing with the one who brung her'.

Edwards' message is clear and clearly "borrowed" by the other two.  First with economic stimulus plan that was borrowed.  First with Iraq exit strategy plan, borrowed.  First with tax plan, borrowed.  Education, borrowed.  Jobs, borrowed.  Environment, borrowed.  It's just goes on and on until the clear policy leader and idea man becomes none other than John Edwards.  And none of these ideas were bought and paid for by corporate America; by lobbyists; by special interests.  They were paid for by interested, engaged Americans like you and me who long for real change from the right leader for the job.

And by the way, America doesn't need any more moderates.  That's why nothing gets done in Washington.  I want someone to go in with a big stick and beat the tar out of all those special, moneyed, corporate interests who've been strangling our democracy and, by extension, the pursuit of happiness to which we are all Constitutionally entitled.  Remember, corporations are not the enemy, but their marriage to our democracy is.    

But given all of this, just look at the polls.  Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who consistently and with a healthy margin beats EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN candidate.  McCain, Romney, the Huckster, Giuliani (is he still a candidate... and if so, why?).  

So please, people.  Vote with an eye to the general election.  Read the policies, read the histories, read into the potential futures of these candidates.  Edwards is the clear choice for taking America and her people to a better place.

For your enjoyment:

www.everydaycitizen.com/.../economists_endorse_john_edward.html

www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp

www.commondreams.org/.../6352

All truth passes through three stages.  First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.    -Schopenhauer

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.  -J.F. Kennedy

Interesting result in the Washington Post's exit-poll coverage today: Obama voters expressed less displeasure at the prospect of a Hillary nomination than Hillary voters expressed at the prospect of an Obama nomination.

Contra discussions here, in the real world it seems to be Hillary Democrats who are intolerant of the other candidate winning the nomination and more likely to stay home in November. Just another sign of the class with which Hillary, who is now officially* breaking her promise not to compete in Florida, is running.

*She's been unofficially competing in Florida for weeks now, running an under-the-radar absentee-ballot effort, but now she's not bothering to lie about breaking her promise anymore, so it can be called "official." Honesty in Contonland: No longer lying about breaking your vows.

Noam,

Below, I put your  purported "The Take-Away From South Carolina" in a more realistic context than you and the kool-aid drinkers in the press would attempt to.

Backing up my previous post with actual hard numbers from the exit polls in Nevada (see: news.rgj.com/.../article) will show why no matter how your read SC, you'll conclude that the large proportion of blacks in the electorate made all the difference. SC is NV redux, except for the large black vote. Nothing has really changed regarding the underlying dynamics other than the good press coverage that this totally predictable win would generate:

--------------------------------------------------------

"NEVADA DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES

   Two-thirds of caucus-goers were white and Clinton won then by 52 percent to 34 percent for Obama. Fifteen percent were black and Obama won 83 percent of them. A similar proportion were Hispanic and they went more than 2-to-1 for Clinton, although the survey could not cover nine at-large voting precincts at casinos on the Las Vegas strip — sites expected to include many Hispanics among culinary union workers.

   Women comprised 59 percent of caucus-goers and they went 51-38 for Clinton, while men split pretty evenly between her and Obama. That was more like the results in the New Hampshire primary than the Iowa caucuses, which Obama won by narrowly defeating Clinton among women.

   Black women — choosing between voting for a black man or a white woman — supported Obama as overwhelmingly as black men did." [DCS note: Just like in SC]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

virtually no differences in the make up of his winning coalition in SC and his losing coalition in NV. He had, in fact, won a larger share of the white vote in NV (34%) than he did in SC. But his support among blacks was about the same in both states (~80%). The difference was that NV had only 15% blacks, whereas in SC, black turnout was more than 50% of total. You will not see the type of analysis that I just provided here widely disseminated in the press because Obama is their boy so they'll be amazed that he won by such and such margin, but there is nothing about his win yesterday, other generating positive coverage, that changes the underlying dynamics. It is still an upward battle for Obama, and it might have gotten harder because in some quarters now, he will be perceived -- some justification considering his support among blacks -- as the "black candidate"...

You can spin things any way you'd like, it won't change the fact that Obama won because SC blacks, who made up more than 50% of the electorate, voted as a bloc, which, like in NV,is not likely to be meaningful in most Super Tuesday states except for GA.

scrubbyoak  said:

"dcshungu: Still playing the race card, huh?  You - the Clinton machine, that is - are shameless. You've all been cleverly insinuating race, hoping that the Obama campaign defends by engaging in it.  That way, he'll look like Sharpton or Jackson in the eyes of white America."

After having lost two contests in a row, Obama's camp had to make sure that they did not lose SC (their "firewall"), so they played their trump card in an state where blacks make up 50% of the electorate. They played the race card: Mildly ambiguous statements by Hillary and Bill were elevated to the level of the ultimate in racial slurs and it worked. Blacks were "hurt", and they deserted Hillary in droves, giving Obama an impressive victory. But I think that he might have succeeded too well. See my analysis in the previous post.  Obama now is the "black candidate" in some quarters because of this overwhelming black support in SC. And, BTW, Jesse Jackson did win SC, twice... So why is it racist to mention that fact, and it is not racist when it is mentioned that Edwards, the native son, won it in 2004? Inquiring minds wanna know...

Scrub: The idea that only the Clintons are playing the race card, as dc notes, is ludicrous.  Obama was hoping to have it both ways -- have African-Americans vote identity politics and the rest of the voters judge him on his character/policies (in that order).  Obama's surrogates, including his wife and Oprah, made the pitch.  Condemn the Clintons for using race if you'd like, just be evenhanded about it.

ps -- it bears repeating, the first clear injection of race I recall in the primary was the Obama campaign's "S. - Punjab" press release.  

Like I said earlier, dcshungu, you are wallowing in race.  Shame on you and your Clinton machine that you work for.

Does anyone else notice that Edwards, despite his leftward appearing lurch this year, still does better among voters call themselves moderate and conservative as well as people who want to stay in Iraq longer!.  Obviously nobody is under the impression that he particularly believes anything he says.  The person above who said that he "has been fighting for the middle class his entire life" must work for the guy.  There is no other excuse.

scrubbyoak  said:

"Like I said earlier, dcshungu, you are wallowing in race.  Shame on you and your Clinton machine that you work for."

Thanks for that incisive analysis, which reeks of too much kool-aid. LOL. It would come as a shock to my two Manhattan Ivy League Medical School employers that I am a "moonlighter."

dcshungu  

You're clearly in the Clinton camp, but I would like to ask you a simple question: Why? When trusted with health care, she managed to botch it so badly that universal healthcare became radioactive for 15 years. When she was handed the job of finding a Supreme Court nominee, she brought us Zoe Baird. She voted for flag burning amendments. Voted for legislation that was crafted by credit card companies. Voted with Lieberman on Iran. And on the most important vote of her Senate career, she voted to give the president an authorization to use force in Iraq; a vote she no doubt cast because she thought it would help her presidential bid. What could be more cynical?

On a purely practical level, she is carrying enormous negatives and will be a drag on moderates running for congress. Fair or not, she's an enormously decisive figure and, based on the pervasive lying on the campaign, she's willing to say anything to win the primary. She's unprincipled. She's cynical. She has a record of bad decision making and she's unelectable. How can you support her?

To felixy01: I agree with most of Edwards' positions. But isn't anybody worried about the fact that, as Feingold pointed out, when he was  a Senator he voted the opposite? Doesn't that at the very least mean his judgement is questionable? Iraq, Nafta, Patriot Act, etc etc.  If fighting against poverty is really the great cause in his life, why did he do it so badly when he was a Senator? I just don't understand Edwards.

Just for the record lymon - yes, technically people who wrote that punjab memo worked for Obama, but he did not have any idea it was being written, let alone sent out.

He rebuked the people involved, and also let it be known that they had not been fired because people make mistakes when they are worked up.  He stated openly that he had no desire to win that way - as if the Clinton people don't know that, please.  They are manipulating and lying about that memo as much as the Reagan garbage (although I noticed the victimology stopped pretty quickly about that non event as soon as Penn started his lovely cocaine stuff - unbelievable).  

Obama also made it clear that the content and tone of the memo offended him personally, something the Clinton camp has never done with the disgusting, degrading comments from Andrew Young, et all, and that he'd received calls from very good friends (college roomate, a friend from Hawaii) who were Pakinistani and Indian and he'd had to apologize for the immaturity and mistake of someone who worked for him. He assured these friends that he was as offended as they were and that still, he was very sorry.

Who are you going to believe?  It's not the voters fault that it is impossible to believe a word out of Hillary Clinton's mouth, it is entirely hers.

lymon1: There's a huge difference between having a campaign worker say something  racist (punjab),  and underhandedly playing race in order to pigeon-hole your opponent.

Obama acknowledged the racism in his campaign workers statement and apologized. The Clintons, on the other hand, are being the Clintons - deny, deny, deny.....just keep lying.

My message this morning to the NYT regarding their endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

["In-your-face New York Times, you lachey of the establishment. Too many damn old folks on your editorial board, no wonder you can't sell this paper anymore.  :-)

Hey guys, do you like apples?

Well Barack Obama blew Hillary Clinton away in South Carolina.

How do you like them apples?  :-) "]

------------------------------------

EXIT POLLS

www.cnn.com/.../index.html

All

18-29 -- 67%

30-44 -- 62%

45-59 -- 55%

Non-Black 18-29 -- 52%

White 18-29 -- 49%

Black 30-44 -- 82%

--------------------------------------------

A Quick Fundraising Spike Online

blog.washingtonpost.com/.../a_quick_fundraising_spike_onli.html

[....online money was pouring in at the rate of more than $500,000 per hour.]

-

mpatrickhendri  said:

"You're clearly in the Clinton camp, but I would like to ask you a simple question: Why? When trusted with health care, she managed to botch it so badly that universal healthcare became radioactive for 15 years."

By your comments, I have no doubt about what your politics are, and being forward-looking, you'll have to forgive me for not engaging you in the sort of mindless discussions  that I have heard ad nauseam on fringe far-left discussion groups. Hillary has debated his opponents on CURRENT issues and has held fine just on her own, in fact I believe that she's kicked butt each time. So why do I care about Zoe Baird, especially since she held no elective office back then?

The TNR is a just left of the center site so I believe that you came to the wrong site for that sort of "discussion."

Good day.

I will indulge you in general terms and answer the following:

"She has a record of bad decision making and she's unelectable. How can you support her?

At least she has a record that can be debated, but Obama has none to speak of. How can you support him? Do you really think that a first-term WHITE senator from Illinois, with Obama's resume and lack of record would have commanded the attention of the press that Obama has commanded, even if he were "articulate"?  This is a case of "soft bigotry of low expectations": Obama is  a black man who has exceeded the white MSM's low expectations about what a black man can achive, so they have given him a pass on obvious aspects of his thin political resume and connections (Rezko) about which any other candidate would have been vigorously scrutinized .

I do not drink the kool-aid. That is why I support Hillary.

Good day.

Whatever the future may hold rest assured that the Obama campaign has changed racial politics in the US forever and for that I am grateful. Now he didn't invent the message but he is actualizing it. I have hopes for our future progeny. Maybe we can approach our collective discussions in a different way which is more reflective of the goal rather than the self defeating navel gazing propensity to being defined by what was.

scrubbyoak  said:

"Obama acknowledged the racism in his campaign workers statement and apologized. The Clintons, on the other hand, are being the Clintons - deny, deny, deny.....just keep lying."

I bet that you said that with a straight face too. Hillary quickly dismissed any over-zealous supporter associated with her camp who was caught saying derogatory things about her opponents. Obama is yet to dismiss anyone, including Jesse Jackson Jr, his national campaign chairman, for insensitive remarks about Hillary. Just because you drink the kool-aid does not mean that you can distort easily provable and recent historic facts.

dcshungu: No kool-aid drinking here. Actually, I was crazy about the Clintons and staunchly defended them during the Republican inquisition against them. I'll also admit leaning towards Obama early in this campaign but would vote for Hillary if she got nominated. No more. After Iowa, the Clinton machine made me truly understand why they polarize, and are hated, so much.

They could have beaten, and can still beat, Obama in a fair issue-oriented campaign. That's because though they are close on issues and policy, the edge goes to Clinton because of the experience factor, her superior debating skill and her wonkishness. But no, they had to go negative, underhandedly using race, telling half-truths or just flat out lying. That Jesse Jackson comment by Bill should erase any doubts that the Clintons' use race by design. That was a political sleaze pro crafting a message.

dschungu and "kool-aid" = projection anyone?

I fail to see how Hillary's voting record is anything to be proud of. Which vote showed any courage? Which vote can you honestly say was not positioning for a Presidential run?  You can't name any because it is impossible to straight up believe her. Ever.

Noam: re "This item initially stated that Hillary didn't congratulate Obama in her remarks in Tennessee. The Clinton campaign (and a commenter) notes that Hillary did in fact congratulate Obama at this event."  

As a subscriber I don't appreciate this kind of sloppy bias in your analysis at TNR.

Bill Clinton's recent comments have seriouly diminished him in my eyes. Like many other Democrats, I have long been extremely attached to the guy.  His charisma, articulateness, and basic liberal values have strongly utweighed his other foibles.

But his recent comments to diminish/racialize Obama's sucess have placed him in the role of political hac rather than de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

scrubbyoak  said:

"dcshungu: No kool-aid drinking here. Actually, I was crazy about the Clintons and staunchly defended them during the Republican inquisition against them. I'll also admit leaning towards Obama early in this campaign but would vote for Hillary if she got nominated. No more. After Iowa, the Clinton machine made me truly understand why they polarize, and are hated, so much."

What exactly happened after Iowa that showed how polarizing Hillary is? What I recall is the MSM going again on over-driving and declaring her "toast" until she and the voters made them eat crow by pulling a rabbit  out of the hat in NH and then winning NV despite, the hailed endorsement of Obama by the Culinary Workers Union. The whining by Obama's camp and his supporters has reached such a level of absurdity that it has solidified my view that the only reason Obama has done so well in this contest so far is because he is a black man who has exceeded the low expectations that the white media have for blacks. He has been given a pass because of it

scrubbyoak  added:

"They could have beaten, and can still beat, Obama in a fair issue-oriented campaign. That's because though they are close on issues and policy, the edge goes to Clinton because of the experience factor, her superior debating skill and her wonkishness. But no, they had to go negative, underhandedly using race, telling half-truths or just flat out lying. That Jesse Jackson comment by Bill should erase any doubts that the Clintons' use race by design. That was a political sleaze pro crafting a message."

More of the same whining. I will just post an excerpt from a post by Josh Marshall at TPM (talkingpointsmemo.com/.../064811.php), which thoughtfully challenged the notion that somehow, the Clintons' politics  were out of bounds. While he is concerned about Bill's involvement, he makes a convincing case that the notion that the Clintons' have engaged in nastier politics than usual is ludicrous and I agree:

-------------------------------------------------------

The Problem With Bill 2.0

01.26.08 -- 3:28PM

By Josh Marshall

I've been trying for several days now to sort out my reactions to the increasingly bitter turn of the Democratic nomination race. So let share with you my thoughts about where we are.

As I told you at the time, I thought most of the charges that the Clintons were injecting race into the process were bogus. And the Obama campaign definitely tried to stoke questions about what were at worst awkward or ambiguous statements. What's more, most of the talk about venomous attacks on Obama really don't add up.

Bringing up Rezko or cherry-picking Obama's quotes about the Iraq War to cast doubt on his consistent opposition to the war don't cut it. You don't go into a campaign with the idea that your opponents are obligated to present a dispassionate and fair-minded picture of the totality of your record. Or if you do you're a fool. Maybe you think that it should be that way but I'm not even sure there's any point discussing that hypothetical. Fundamentally a campaign is an adversary process, like a courtroom; it's not a civics lesson. Each side puts the other to its test. And there's very little I've seen from the Clinton camp that would seem like anything but garden variety political hardball if it were coming from Hillary or other Clinton surrogates rather than Bill Clinton.

I hear from a lot of Obama supporters that that may be how it's been. But Obama is about the 'new politics'. But this is no different from what Bill Bradley was saying in 2000. And it was as bogus then as it is now. Beyond that there is an undeniable undercurrent in what you hear from Obama supporters that he is too precious a plant -- a generational opportunity for a transformative presidency -- to be submitted to this sort of knockabout political treatment. That strikes me as silly and arrogant, if for no other reason that the Republicans will not step aside for Obama's transcendence either.

And yet I cannot deny that I've felt a mounting sense of unease verging into disgust with Bill Clinton's increasingly aggressive role in the campaign over the last couple of weeks. So I've tried to figure out just what it is that's gotten to me. To give you some perspective, I don't think there are many people who are bigger fans of Bill Clinton than I am or who've expended more ink defending him and his presidency. Nor am I particularly sold on Obama's candidacy. Transcendence isn't usually a big sell for me in politics. And I continue to have my doubts about whether Obama is tough enough or savvy enough to withstand the avalanche the Republicans will throw against the Democratic nominee this fall.

I think there are a lot of us who sense an air of arrogance in Obama's talk of transcendence, reconciliation and unity. I think there are a lot of people who would say, I would have loved to have transcended back in 1995 or 1998 or 2002. But we were spending every ounce on the political battle lines trying to prevent the Republicans from destroying the country. It's hard for folks like that to hear from someone new that they're part of the problem, part of the 'old politics'. "

[...snip...]

-------------------------------

He at lest is credible because he clearly has not drunk of the Obama kool-aid. To keep whining  that the Clintons are engaging in nasty politics without credible evidence is, IMHO, a loud admission that Obama is not ready to be the Dem general election nominee, where what will be thrown at him by the Repub smear machine would make anything that the Clintons' have thrown at him look like kids' stuff. To keep whining about the Clintons' "nastiness" undercuts any argument that Obama is ready to withstand that onslaught by the legendary  GOP smear machine... really.

There is a Ciceronian rhetorical device wherein one denies doing something at the very moment that one is doing it. Obama is a master of this. Today with Stepanopolis he denied accusing Hillary of "demonizing" him even as George quoted the word from his speech from last night. The same applies to racializing the election. An election in which one identity group supports a candidate otf that identity by 4 to 1 has been plunged into identiy politics. But Obama and his covert surrogates, like Clyburn and Donna Brazile, have played the race card by accusing Clinton, on the basis of unremarkable or deliberately misinterpreted comments, of playing the race card.

References to racial or identity issues are not "playing the race card." Implying that a statement by your opponent should be a basis for identity or racially-based resentment is playing the race card. This is what Obama and his surrogates have done, all the while claiming that they are simply responding to their opponents. If Obama or Clyburn had simply discussed Clinton's point about Johnson without suggesting that it was a racist or disrespectful remark, then they would not have been playing the race card. By responding as they did, they called on identity resentments as a weapon against their opponent.

Obama is similarly disingenuous with regard to his comments about Reagan. Obama was clearly speaking of Reagon in a positve tone and denigrating teh democrat Bill Clinton as a way of appealing to independents and republicans. This is the way the postive tone of his comments were initially understood and interpreted by the media. But when he is attacked for this position, he accuses his opponents of lying. Who is being dishonest? The Chicago Tribune in their cureent editorial about Obama and Rezko, provides one answer.

OK fine, anyone with a problem trusting Hillary Clnton is simply a blind kool-aid drinker. That is your case against Obama - as filled with holes as it is (please quote verbatim an Obama "whine", especially anything that might remotely compare to "they've put a hit out on me" cue the violins from our Bill).

Obama put out two statements in the last week stating Bill Clnton had a right to say whatever he wanted.  I do not quake in fear at the Republican "machine" anymore, it's a broken down jalopy with no money, no credibility and the wheels are coming off.  

What are they going to do?  Bring up cocaine? Race issues? Old girlfriends? Rezko, Renko - whaoever that is that no one cares about? Not expereinced enough said 46 different ways? oooooo super scary (insert teeth chattering).  Let's get some spine in this party for once, shall we?

Let the party of pedophile congressmen, Jack Abrohoff, corruption, Terri Shivo, and katrina/Iraq level incompetence alienate moderates and lots of Republicans too, fine - bring on the freaking general election and these big bad Republiocans tomorrow for all I care. I'm utterly done being a cowardly Democrat living in fear of being called names by Rush Limbaugh. Are you?

My issue is not blind pro- Obama, I'd vote for McCain if Hillary was the nominee. My problem is a thought out, very rational mistrust of Hillary Clinton.dcshungu, can you please make you case for why you trust her?  

Please not a regurgitaton of why Obama is not your guy, but what personal qualities and specific votes Hillary Clinton has had in her life that merit your trust.  I'm serious - I've defended the Clinton's for 15 years and am a feminist liberal Democrat who lives in Manhattan, a female who loves my mother and has zero problem with ambition or hard-ball politics. I am usually a hawk militarily.

But Hillary Clinton is someone who I cannot believe a word out of her mouth, and believe me, I have tried very hard to do so.

Thanks in advance.

Wandreycer1  said:

"My issue is not blind pro- Obama, I'd vote for McCain if Hillary was the nominee. My problem is a thought out, very rational mistrust of Hillary Clinton.dcshungu, can you please make you case for why you trust her?"

Because Hillary has been my Senator for more than a term, has worked very hard for issues that are important to her constituents, honestly, diligently and proudly, so I trust her because I know her, as do millions of New Yorkers, a state that is the true face of America by its diversity. The burden of proof, my friend, is on you to make a credible case that Hillary is not trustworthy. I mean, do not just repeat the right-wing garbage of the last decade years. Or the canonical list of made up charges such as her involvement in Vince Foster's death, or that the Clintons ran a drug cartel... That sort of thing. I would like facts and figures, backed by credible evidence that Hillary is indeed the person you think she is, which seems like the caricature that the media and the wingnuts have now peddled for over a decade.

Thank you in advance...  

Wandreycer1

Here Here, well said.

We've had enough fear to last as a generation. Bring on the Republican bullies, and watch us stand up to them.  Like all bullies they always scurry away like punks when their bluff is called.

wnaderer,

Hillary has been on the right side of the issues all of her adult life. She has shown depth and gumption as a person and has endured more than most of us could ever stand. She has maintained her compassion for the suffering and she effectively bridges the gap bewteen those who are suffering and powerful, which is why so many of the suffering support her. Many of the soft-spoken allegations about her are calumny. The worst of the repugnicants fear her. She is competent, deeply steeped in the issues that need to be addressed, very-hardworking, and tough as nails. She is way ahead in the national and major state polls. I think she will be a historic president who achieves great change in our country. Remember--the Clintons are the ONLY democrats who have tamed the republicans in 40 years.

dcshungu

So Senator Hillary Clinton took care of New York, and her constituents in that state by giving into the every whim of the Bush administration, and becoming a willing partner in the deception of the American people and in the undermining of the Constitution and the integrity of the Republic, because it was politically expedient, and she calculated that it would work to her advantage in this presidential election, isn't that so?

And that's your idea of progressive values?

Personally I think that was the worst possible compromise, and shows extremely poor judgment on Senator Clinton's part, leading me to conclude that she is certainly not the kind of person I want running my country.  I would've had far more of respect for her if she had lost her Senate seat going up against the Bush administration, but she didn't have the integrity or the guts for that.

So excuse me if I say no thank you to a capitulating accomplice to the current Constitution trashing traitors to the Republic who are sitting in the White House today. Clinton's judgment as well as her character is tragically flawed in my estimation.

Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama

blogs.abcnews.com/.../ted-kennedy-to.html

Well, I agree with you entirely on the filth thrown at Hillary Clinton during the 90's - I was deep in my Clintonista mode then, I still find all of the charges, witch hunts, madness, to be entirely without merit. Every last bit.

I'll tell you what I do admire about her - her decision to run for Senate (she's my Senator too), in the face of all that and with all the naysayers naying. I admire her ability to bring home the bacon for upstate voters who initially voted against her, I admire her decision to not use her celebrity irresponsibly once she got there and to reach out to former enemies in order to be a real member of the Senate.  Frankly, there are few people on the public stage that I think are better suited for the role of Senator.  She could have been one of our greats.

But. But.

Either you find every move she's made in the Senate calculating or you don't.  I do.  

It didn't bother me very much until the Presidential campaign when the fog of cynicism and expediency I'd been trained to accept the last ten years began to dissipate. I realized that I am actually afraid of having this woman as my President because I do not know when she is sincere or what her core is - ever.  Like I said, just being a fiercely ambitious competitor really is fine with me, as long as the work someone does all washes out to be mostly good, I'm not bothered by that, But it makes one wonder how easy it would be to be thrown under the bus at the drop of a hat ala Bill Clinton and black people in the last week.  So much for Mr First Back President - what utter bull.

That infamous immigration question in the debate displayed clearly what I am talking about in broad daylight, she did that all by herself and it was very unpleasant.  Her real, coreless self shown through, whether anyone liked it or not, and it was really awful, so embarrassing, so telling. I lost alot of respect for her then and realized that the fact that she is incapable of just answering a question without gauging the potential damage to her PERSONL ambitions first made it impossible for me to trust her EVER.  Remember the New Hampshire tears? I felt they were real, but the subject matter wasn't torture, vets suffering from PTSD, Katrina victims still living in moldy trailers - it was about herself  entirely.  Poor me. Yuck.

I can't trust something as pivotol and basic as her vote to go to war was honesly felt - that's not acceptable to me. Her vote to kiss rump yet again to neocon patriotically correct mush about Iran was also suspect. Does she really believe any of this or not? It's hard to say - she's been running for President for 6 years now obviously and wants those moderates badly.  Whatever it took to look a certain way, that's what it appeared she was doing.  Was any of it out of conviction?

But you know what Obama said when asked what he'd do about Iran? He said he go there tomorrow, no requirements, no caveats, period. Just that he'd go there. Now this was several months ago, pre NIE report when the White House had a major hard on to commence bombing ASAP.  Iraq was still unstable as hell. Accepted wisdom woud have been for a first term progressive black man to saber rattle and strut around acting as tough as possible with an eye on those moderates, ala Guiliani - maybe hire Podheritiz or some other neocon moron.  

But Obama doesn't pander.  Whatever you may think of his idea for beginning talks with Iran, and that's a fair debate, it took balls for him to be honest and go against acceptable wisdom, screw the outcome.  

THAT"S the sort of thing that makes me trust someone.  Hillary bagging on the far left doesn't begin to count, that only helps her.  When has she stepped out of the comfort zone to defend somethng from the left? Put her neck out for any of the tougher issues from the left?

Even McCain - who I will vote for if he;s the nominee and Hillary is ours - I disagree with him on 3/4 of the issues, but I know what I am getting and I trust him.  If he says he's going to help gays in the military, he'll damn well do it. If he says he can't, then don't hold your breathe.  

I simply can't believe Hillary in those cases, I wish I could, but I cannot.  This election is too important to me to not have that trust factor in there at a gut level.  She'll spend her whole first term trying to get re-elected, which is fine, that's the name of the game I guess, but given an alternative to that sort of empty manuevering, I'll take it any day.

I know you aren't inspired by Obama, but I really am and that's also a major motivator for me.  I want Hillary to be real and I'm never going to feel that and I'm done trying.  I've said before, I'll always catch her back when the  mysoginy gets so thick you can't breathe, but I cannot support her for President. No way.

I agree with Aaron BBrown -    WHO wants a HAWK, yes, I said HAWK, as shown by her votes NOT ONLY on Iraq but also on Iran, who stomps on our Constitution, VOTES for the Patriot ACT without reading it, etc, in the WHITE HOUSE? So no more absurd Kool-AId references, PLEASE !!

AaronBBrown  said:

"So Senator Hillary Clinton took care of New York, and her constituents in that state by giving into the every whim of the Bush administration, and becoming a willing partner in the deception of the American people and in the undermining of the Constitution and the integrity of the Republic, because it was politically expedient, and she calculated that it would work to her advantage in this presidential election, isn't that so?"

The Clintons have their right-wing detractors, who I would seldom engage, and the same stands for their LEFT-WING detractors. Like you, the wingnuts  felt that Bill Clinton "was not the kind of person they wanted running their country", despite the fact he had given us relative peace and unprecedented prosperity. So, what makes your obvious foaming-at-mouth hatred of Hillary different than the wingnuts' for her husband?

Hillary has the best progressive record of the top-tier candidates this election, y'know. Please give me something that is not far-left knee-jerk reaction to the Cintons and I might address it, otherwise have a nice day.

I don't think being frustrated with Hillary's choice to not stand up more openly and clearly - with concrete results - to the Bush/Cheney onslaught is a complaint only coming from the far left.  It's a standard beef across all spectrums.  Which progressive record? I'm not being snide - I mean it.

dcshungu,

I see you're incapable of sharing your thoughts without using some childish snub "kool-aid drinker," "mindless," "farleft", etc. But I'll go against my better instincts and reply. First, I'm a South Carolina Yellow Dog Democrat and moderate on nearly every issue. I believe the first priority of government is law and order. I believe in a strong military and the judicious use of force. I'm a second amendment defender. I think that our first financial priority should be paying off our national debt, etc. In short, I'm not a mindless "far-left" kool-aid drinking drone. So give it up. It's just tacky and pedestrian sophistry to dismiss others as too stupid or ideologically blinkered to be address with some respect. Second, on the issue of "record" let me point out the obvious: Hillary Clinton has been in the Senate since 2001. Obama since 2004. A grand difference of three years, not to mention he had a political career before the US Senate. If that's the difference she's running on, well, god help you. And if she's running on being the First Lady, I would suggest that her role in the health care disaster and Zoe Baird is entirely relevant.

As for CURRENT history, her vote on the Iraq War is current history. So is her support of credit card companies, flag burning etc. It's called her record. I know it's not fun to defend those votes but it is necessary. Despite her sense of entitlement she it owes to the voters.

As to your comments of race, I'll let them stand on their own. They require no repudiation. It's the sort of thing I would expect from Carl Rove, but I'm saddened to see it thrown around in a Democratic Primary. Afterall, there was another WHITE senator that ran in a primary and did very well. His name is John Edwards. Funny, I didn't see they sort of accusations of "low expectations" four yers ago when he was on the Kerry ticket. But nice try.

Good day, indeed.

Wandreycer1  said:

"I don't think being frustrated with Hillary's choice to not stand up more openly and clearly - with concrete results - to the Bush/Cheney onslaught is a complaint only coming from the far left.  It's a standard beef across all spectrums.  Which progressive record? I'm not being snide - I mean it."

Your ad populum fallacy notwithstanding, let's see who has been sounding more and more  like a Republican Fifth Column among the Dems (unless he'd say anything to get elected, but we'll take his word for it because he is such a stand up guy):

- Obama wants to "fix" social security, so do the Repubs.

- Obama thinks that  Reagan was great, so do all the Repubs.

- Obama thinks the Repubs had all the good ideas over the past 15 years, Newt Gingrich agrees.

- Obama opposes mandates as way to achieve universal health care, so do the Repubs.

- Obama thinks that the UN is useless world body, well so do George Bush and George Will...

We report. You decide.

Ah, now I got it. You're just as obnoxious and dishonest as Clinton. "Reagan was great" "Repubs had all the good ideas" an insinuation that Obama wants to abolish social security and leave the UN. Good God, man. You know perfectly well that's all untrue but you repeat it.

That's just sad.

Wandreycer1

I said give me something that I might address, and not the usual canards. But two can play that game... Just a small sampler and you'll get my drift:

Canard #1: Obama "opposed' the war. I have written ad nauseam about his purported "opposition: to the war. In 2002, Obama was about to launch his candidacy for the Illinois US Senate seat and had to "oppose" the war or lose African-Americans, whose vote he absolutely had to have in order to prevail, but they had opposed the Iraq war from the get-go (African-American kids make up the overwhelming proportion of the US combat forces, and would suffer the disproportionate number of casualties). His "opposition" to the war no "profile in courage". He had no choice but to come out against the war if he wanted to win the nomination for the US Senate seat.  However, after he got to the US Senate, Obama voted just like Hillary. Canard #2: Iran. Obama skipped the vote on the  Kyl-Liberman Iran bill and then, in Chutzpah ultima, turned around and slammed those who had the courage to show and vote. Canard #3: On the drivers' license issue, I am not sure what is your point since in the very next debate, Obama had stumbled in the very same question.

Say what you will about Hillary, but you cannot accuse her of lacking courage. Whenever there was a vote to be cast, she showed up and voted her conscience and stood by her vote. It is not what most would say about Obama, who, even as a state senator, has had a long record of vote ducking tough votes by voting "present" ... Obama is benefiting from the "soft bigotry of low expectations." A black man who has exceeded the white media's expectations. A first-term WHITE Senator from Illinois with Obama's rhetorical skills would already have been laughed off the stage a long time ago.

Despite all of this I have no animosity toward Obama. I just feel that he is the least qualified candidate for POTUS on the Dem side at this time. I will vote for him if he is our nominee but I will defend Hillary against attacks on the caricature of her that the media noise machine and wingnuts  have fed the public for far too long now. She is our best shot at winning this thing... real.

You get my drift... Enjoy the kool-aid.

Oh dear - this is all so twisted, ridiculous and easily refuted, it borders on embarrassing and actually makes it into funny.  Yep, that's Obama - community organizer, Iraq war critic from day 1, consitituonal law professor, closet Republican!  So glad we had those trusty Hillary people to clue us in on the real story, phew.  

You might want to youtube up Obama's interview with the Denver Post and check out what he actually said - listen to the whole hour.  It resembles your points as much as I resemble Cindy Crawford (ahem).

But something tells me that what he actually said or even continues to say doesn't matter.  As long as it's easily digestible fodder for attack ads, why worry about such minor details as truth?

I hope Hillary is what you're looking for and I wish her the best.  

For someone who mouths verbatim Hillary website talking points, I'd be careful about caling someone a kool-aid drinker. Your projection is showing again.

I certainly can question Hillary's courage and see almost no evidence of it - diligent, yes. Courageous - when?  If you can point to me once while she's been in the Senate that she stood up for real progressive values, especially in an instance when it would have impacted her politicall health, you'd be a miracle worker.  

And anyone who voted for that disgusting bankrupcy bill should be thrown out of the Democratic party immediatelty.  A more vile piece of legislation does not exist and the fact that she voted for it is exhibit number one in showcasing her utter emptiness.

Every Clinton supporter is ignoring that in South Carolina, 24% of the White vote, and a near majority of the youth white vote is exceptional. This is South Carolina. You can see self-professed white Dems drive around with confederate flags on their pickup truck to this day. To pretend that a typical South Carolinian, especially an older one, is the same as a typical white Iowan, or New Jersyite, is simply ludicrous.

To dschungu and other Hillary supporters. I am a swing voter, a Reagan democrat. In my entire adult life I have voted in the majority in either Pa. or NJ (the two places I have voted) I voted for Christie Whitman (and I would vote for her for President in a minute) when I lived there, and I have voted for Arlen Specter, I also voted for Reagan in my first vote. The only candidate I voted against that won was Santorum in 2000. Other than that the candidate for President I have voted for has won my then state every time. I am not saying they have won the presidency but my state. As has every other candidate for Senate and Governor. And if you wish I can give reasons for my every vote.

You are the base, I am the decider. It might seem unfair but I truly matter more than you because it is my (the swing voter's) opinion that will ultimately settle the election.

I will vote for Obama over McCain (call it hope over experience) but McCain over Hillary. (because I simply trust McCain far more than Hillary, as well as Nat. Sec. reasons, among others).

It is truly amazing that you believe that Hillary can not win without the swing voter. You can not rebut me because you will lose, and at this point you can not persuade me to vote for Hillary.

I am the swing voter and you have been warned. At most you can pray that Romney is nominated instead because I will simply sit the election out.

I think that by herself, Hillary is a fine individual.  By himself, Bill Clinton did a great service to the country by fending off Newt Gingrich & the gang of Southern Neo-Confederates that took over Congress in 1994.

Together, however, you get a new, Frankenstein-ish version of Richard III.  I'm white, live in the Big Prize (California), grew up in Texas, and will be voting for Obama on Feb. 5.  I was undecided until Bill's antics of the last two weeks.

blackton,

I live in Charleston, SC, the craddle of the confederacy and will pay you a thousand dollars if you can find a single white dem that has a confedrate flag on his truck. Might as well make it a million. That stereo type is so ludicrous, it's laughable. As a matter of fact, in all my years in democratic politcs, the closest I've seen to that is a bumpsticker that said "Save the South, teach a yankee to drive." That was on my Delta 88.

ANd allow me to add mpatrickhendri  - as a California transplant stuck in New York, I can personally attest that that is an utterly fair bumper sticker.

wandrey, with the exception of the obscene flag burning pander, I really have no problem with Hill's senate career, I supported the war in Iraq and think her vote then (no matter how she spins it now) was correct. In fact, I think she makes a pretty fine Senator. I am also a little tired of this whole courage riff. Nobody is shooting at each other in the Senate. Beyond that, just because a position you advocate being unpopular might make you "politically" courageous, but it sure as hell doesn't make you right.  Advocating quaranteeing aids patient would be a very politically courageous thing to do, it would also be absolutely wrong.

And, with the exception of health care mandates (I think mandates are damn stupid) there isn't much I find fault with Hillary policy wise. I might disagree with her idea for Iraq now, but I don't fault her for it, just disagree. However, she has been an absolute disaster politically this past month. And if I were a Hillary supporter I would be crying for Penn's head and a top-down restructure. 4 years ago I remember being very pissed off at Kerry for not doing something about the swift-boat thing, and was pissed off at him. It seems that Hillary has surrounded herself with enablers.

As I said, she has lost my vote, but I am a political junkie, I do know if she keeps this up she will be gift wrapping November to the Republicans. And I won't even mind.

mpatrickhendri, sorry but I know what i saw. In fact, I can give you the name of one such person who is a self-professed Dem and who has a confederate flag on his pickup truck. He was a pressman at a printing company, he pasted a flag on his printing press too. And yes, he was a Democrat (from a long line of Democrats) So where is my thousand dollars? Come on, you are also being a tad defensive too aren't you? Go into a printing company and talk to some of the workers there and tell me that some of the old prejudices don't exist.

I can also tell you a lot of the stereotypes about New Jersey also happen to be true. The good thing about people from NJ is that we at least acknowledge it.

Blackton, you're missing the trees with that forest of yours.  

I supported the war too. The point is her entire Senate career has been one nonstop pander to the right.  How much courage would it have taken to denounce that bankrupcy bill?  Maybe some, but Hillary has none. Showing any independence of thought at all, championing any fundemental Democratic philosophy for chrisakes, is really not too much to ask.  She doesn't stand for anything and that - not the justifiability (is that a word) of her specific votes, is what I am refering to.  Hell, Obama even voted against  Gonzo AND Condi.  He wasn't afraid of being called names by Rush Limbaugh and Hillary'd entire soul is paralyzed by that.  I simply cannot trust someone who is made up that way, sorry.

mpatrickhendri, by the way, I am not looking to get into a pissing match about South Carolina, my point is that it is impressive that in the heart of the old confederacy a black candidate can do as well as basically splitting the white vote among a native and the former presumptive favorite. I am also aware how endemic racism and prejudice is in the rest of the United States.

But still, I was in South Carolina not too long ago, the fact that the Confederate battle flag is on the grounds near the state Capital certainly tells me that South Carolina is not at the forefront of racial harmony. When that flag comes down, then I will retire forever any knocks against South Carolina.

wandrey, one persons pander is another persons  " she understands my position" hands down, Romney is the worst serial panderer around so even she looks resolute by comparison.

As to Hillary's soul, I just don't know. Her political tactics this past month have been disgraceful, but so were Bush I and II's, and we know who won those. What bothers me is that her tactics don't seem to be working. The whole Nevada vote blocking game was stupid since she won those precincts she sought to exclude. She was saved from her stupidity by a judge. She has not shown she knows how to fight dirty and win, especially in November.

She and Romney both should have run as they are, uninspiring policy minded wonks who can fix what is broken, if they had both done that from the beginning than I think they both would have won the nomination by now.

Obama took nearly 80 percent of the black vote, yes, but also about a quarter of the white vote. - Noam Sheiber

Shucks, lets see, nationally that would account for what?  Extrapolated that would account for fully less than 25% of the voting public.

What MarsKlif said. Billary = Frankenstein, or maybe Dr Frank N. Furter. Bill is sinking lower and lower, and it reflects extremely poorly on Hillary's judgment that she's approved this Rovain role for him. If this is how the man behaves now, what would he do with Hillary in the White House? If you loved the Cheney end-round, you'll love the tricks Bill's got up his sleeve.

I'll be voting for Obama on Feb 5. I'm not crazy about the guy, think he's frankly a bit light on the issues that matter most to me-- not least because they've never mattered very much to him-- but I think the nation needs to put Bill Clinton out of his and our misery. The sooner the better.

Tep Endorses Obama!  Not a glowing endorsement, but perhaps now is the time for incompletely theorized agreement.  Gratified to see it!

blackton,

The check will be in th mail when I get that name. In a state this small, I would almost certinaly know this person. And for the record, I never said SC was at the forefront of racial reconciliation. The confederate memorial on state house grounds being the most obvious example of a state-wide "forget hell" attitude (Though I'm convinced that it has less to with race and more to with a Scots-Irish piss-off attitude to southern detractors, meaning "yankees"). But I have never seen that attitude in two decades working in Democratic politics. Never.  I know that making everything about race in SC is an easy narrative for the media, but it that dog don't hunt in a democratic primary.

Bill, not BHO, convinced me that it's time to put the Billary era behind us.

The Pew Research Center has an interesting piece up on the &quot;Reverse Bradley Effect&quot; I&#39;ve