Noam, thanks for at least checking out John and Jim's "solid brief against nominating Obama." It is a good first step toward objectivity. However, your reaction to the "solid brief" is typical and predictable. It boils down to this: "Obama is Bad, Hillary is Worse", and you say this despite the fact that she has been "vetted" for some 15 years!!! Now we are to believe that there remain many more skeletons in the Clintons' closet that the RNC would bring out. My sense is that when it comes to Hillary. more skeletons popping out of the closet would just draw a huge collective yawn, which won't be the case with Obama because we have been led to believe in his sainthood. However, after claiming that  "a lot of commenters have misunderstood where I'm coming from on this stuff", Noam returns to the same line about how Hillary is continuing to "damage" Obama by staying in a race that could not possibly win (she should have dropped out before NH, right?), oblivious to the astute analysis by John and Jim that by past standard, Hillary's attacks against Obama have been tame (they then went on to list things that Hillary would really like to say but does not dare).

Noam, 'bittergate' is precisely why Hillary should forge on. You and your ilk have given Obama a free pass to date, so that the more people learn about him, the longer his odds to defeat McCain get, the better Hillary's chances to sway the superdelegates who, if they take their roles seriously, would only be concerned about selecting the candidate they feel would be the stronger of the two in the GE.

"Hillary, too, has baggage" is no defense for Obama against McCain. It is a defense of Obama against Obama and Clinton... How do you defend him against the RNC and the Atwater/Rove smear machine that is already booting up to define Obama for the public?

BTW, Noam, why did you link to the WaPo page that documents BILL CLINTON's legitimate sources of his new found wealth? Do you think the Republicans would really go after someone for making money the old fashioned way and make it stick? The liberals would find that slimy but not the Repubs! Is that an example of your so-called "Hillary's unmentioned liabilities"? It is simply laughable! Bill earned the money because people were willing to hear him speak and they paid HIM loads of money for it. Why is that Hillary's problem? Her meager earnings, by comparison, came from her books? Is now a "liability" to earn money honestly in America these days? Many in your profession have had lucrative book deals that have lifted them out of poverty, do you really want to go "there"?

I have a question for TNR columnists and commenters alike. We see posts on the blogs on the clinton/obama race. Clinton supporters respond with their positions (TNR is biased, Obama lies, etc), Obama supporters with theirs (the race is over, Clinton lies, etc). I think it's fairly clear at this point who is on which side and that no one is going to change the others' minds.

so.. why do you keep doing it? who are you talking to and what are you trying to convince them of? do you think there are undecideds out there, and if you win the argument against the other guys, you might still sway them? do you think you might actually persuade rhubarbs or pccostello of your way of thinking, or convince TNR writers to be more evenhanded? or can you just not stand the idea of that blowhard piece of crap (whoever you think that is) getting the last word?

seriously, I'm curious. reading TNR blogs has become both obsessive and unpleasant for me. I'm aware that I'm not actually learning anything any more, just raising my blood pressure, and yet I can't tear myself away (and only resist the urge to jump in with my own piece of the argument thanks to long practice).

No one misunderstands where you are coming from (at least if he or she is a native speaker of English).  Some people simply cannot accept the idea that the nomination is no longer in doubt and that the party would be better off if Hillary bowed out graciously or at least stopped running the Republican campaign against Obama.

perkowitz, good point, no one is even trying to persuade anymore, it is just venting.  

perkowitz,

My own reason for publishing my negative opinions about Hillary and her narcissistic campaign to nowhere is to contribute toward making her pay for her behavior, behavior that damages the Democratic party's prospects in November because, as Noam has pointed out quite correctly, she has virtually no possibility at this point of claiming the nomination. She ran an incompetent campaign and she lost.  

Of course, one person's little blog entry doesn't count for much, but neither does one vote.  Yet, we must all do our civic duty.  Mine, as I see it, is to punish Hillary in public.  Hopefully, it makes a small contribution toward sinking her in the polls and convincing the super-delegates that May 7 is the date to pull the plug on her campaign.

In much the same way, Hillaristas are constantly trying to damage Obama in the vain hope that Hillary may somehow pull this out.  

Noam said:

"obama inflicted some damage on himself with the bitter comment. but the all-out clinton assault this weekend doesn't move her closer to winning the nomination (that is, closer than letting the comment play out on its own). in fact, i'd argue that it hurts her on balance, because it pisses off so many democrats. the one thing it accomplishes unambiguously is to screw obama if, as is almost certain, he ends up facing mccain in the fall."

Thank you for responding but I think that those are just all unprovable conjectures. You do not know what would happen in the Fall no more than you knew what would happen just before NH when you had declared Hillary done. Your infatuation with Obama and "spite" for Hillary is undeniable. They both entered this race to win, but other than the press crying foul at every turn (she is a race-baiter because she dared to state a historically accurate fact about MLK's and LBJ's respective roles in enacting the civil rights legislation into law), she has not run the sort of negative campaign that TNR has been harping about. Now, having damaged her, you are insisting that she should just quit the race for the "good" of the party despite the fact that Obama has yet to win the nomination ACCORDING TO TE PARTY'S OWN RULES! If we have learned anything at all during this election cycle, it is that Hillary is NOT a quitter. She did not create the ridiculous Dem primary rules (bizarre delegates apportionment rules and open primaries) that have brought us to edge of this precipice; the party did, and she is just playing by those rules. Just like it was premature for TNR to declare her "toast" after IA, it is now premature for you to declare her out and call on her to quit because there remain primaries to be contested and, as the cliche goes, one day is an eternity in politics, and every new day could bring "bitter" surprises (NH also comes to mind). The superdelegates can end this thing but they do not seem too eager to, so, let's just butt out and let it play itself out. If Obama prevails in the end (I would support him then), he would be a lot stronger as a GE for it, not weaker as you content.

If Obama loses in the Fall it would be because the voters found lacking on his own, and not because Hillary gave him a run for the nomination. The party made up the rules (including the superdelegates concept), and we are not going to change them half way through the context. Obama will be the nominee when he reaches the requisite number of delegates. To promote anything else is undemocratic. I just hope that the DNC has learned something from this and would be wise to change the rules for the future (the winner takes all, and no open primaries, rules by which this thing would have already been over and we would have been rallying behind Hillary to prepare against McCain).

Obama's response to Clinton and McCain seems like a body slam to me. He gets the attention of blue collar voters by identifying with and articulating their *actual feelings*, while simultaneously exposing his rivals as cynical say-anything types, AND he's given free reign to go on offense against them.

Where's the damage in this, Noam, other than in the minds of Washington pundits who're so desperate for something to say that they usually describe their own tendentious/baseless speculations as realities on the ground?

So much of this hand-wringing results from the fact that we don't yet have a nominee. The POLITICO piece makes McCain look absolutely unbeatable and the "right-wing freak show" as terrifying as ever.

It ain't. The RCCC is broke. Freedom Watch is stuttering. McCain forgets who's who in the Middle East. But they're all getting a pass.

Pace the McCain-smitten media, it is not only conservatives who can be "authentic." But expect articles like this trashing WHOEVER the Dem nominee is. They did it in 2000, in 2004, they'll do it in 2008. Because, as one terribly insightful TNR writer (!) put it, the media are, at heart, deeply cynical, for all their putatuve liberal leanings.

Both Democratic candidates have their liabilities. But, funny, I don't remember any perfect candidates running...

Obama cant win Jews! Hillary can't win blacks! Blah, blah, blah. None of it is true.

I am agnostic at this point in the race, but I haven't a single doubt that even if it were someone else ahead of her, she would feel it was her "mission" to save Democrats from themselves by making herself the nominee instead.

yeah... is the point that bill took money from CORPORATIONS? Maybe that's something that would make John McCain angry, but probably not your average GOP crossover voter.

I guess he did take a lot of money from groups linked to Israel. Maybe McCain can hit him on that.

It'd be nice if Washington journalists would spend more time talking to real people (non-partisan people) about Obama's comments, rather than yelling louder and louder in the echo chamber that is American journalism. Here's one revealing result:

www.youtube.com/watch

perkowitz: I spend a fair amount of time each day reading and ocassionally commenting on political stuff, here, and at another dozen or so sites. I am an older guy who was given his first TNR subscription ages ago for my bar mitzvah. I volunteered in my first campaign soon thereafter in a great political city, Boston. I have been a lobbiest(non-profit) and a high state employee. I believe that government should be and sometimes is a force for good. I am interested in how both effective management and change happens. Politics is a big part of the way. Just the way it is. (Extraordinary civic minded leadership is the whole way.)

We only have presidential elections every four years and it looks like we Ds have a good shot. It is also, I believe, a very important election. The Republicans have damaged our government and damaged our nation in too many ways to enumerate.

The internet and blogging have made political reporting(and many other kinds of news) a whole new ballgame. There is some very bright reporting and writing that helps me to understand what's happening as the fight ensues. The reporting and analysis is almost instantaneous. So this is both quite intellectually stimulating, a fabulous contest and like People magazine for political junkies. I find it really incredible and sort of wonderful.

But ultimately, does reading the stories and then the comments add to our knowledge of ourselves or the world?  Then again, does reading a good novel? Or watching the Redskins? I might argue that as entertainment, this vicarious obsessive interest is perhaps more worthy than any other of our attention, with many things and interests grabbing at us. After all, at leas it is civic. But it this is entertainment, a show.  And that's what this is: The greatest political shows in the history of the planet earth. And we have been given ring-side seats!

roidubouloi  said:

"No one misunderstands where you are coming from (at least if he or she is a native speaker of English).  Some people simply cannot accept the idea that the nomination is no longer in doubt and that the party would be better off if Hillary bowed out graciously or at least stopped running the Republican campaign against Obama."

Actually, I believe that  the Politico's John Harris and Jim VandeHei did accurately nail the unspoken thinking in the Clinton camp that  (1) Obama would be an absolute GE disaster for the Dem, and (2) this is not yet over because Obama is likely to commit a major misstep that would expose for all to see just what a folly it would be put him out there against McCain. Unlike for you and the TNR staff , this nomination fight is not yet over for the "Clintonistas", as long as Obama has not yet won it, according to the party's own rules -- your dripping condescension toward Hillary notwithstanding. ..

So, if in your view, this nomination is no longer in doubt, why the venom against Hillary? As soon as Obama wins the nomination, it is going to a brand new ball game, that he would lose on his own merit or demerit. That is written in English, so I hope you got it now. To keep spewing your illogical rant betrays what I had called your insecurity: Let's end it now to avoid any surprises [read: gaffes] that would deny Obama the nomination. But guess what? The Clinton camp is counting on those very surprises, so you might as well get used to this race staying with us for a while...

dcshungu,

Your suggestion that the public should just "butt out" and let Hillary run without criticism because the party rules permit it is completely absurd.  Have you forgotten that it is the view of the public that is supposed to determine the outcome?  This is not a sporting event.  All of us have as or more responsibility to participate in shaping public opinion about Hillary than she has to run for public office.  WE are the owners of the nomination, not she and not her faction.  Of course you would like to see her able to attack him at will while she is somehow immune.  Not going to happen.  Those of us who care about the party have a duty to excoriate her.  It would make far more sense if you advised her to butt out of the Democratic party.

Although Hillary is doing her best to damage the party for no better reason than her consummate narcissism, I for one do look forward to seeing her whipped and politically dead.  We don't want any Hillarista revanchism that claims she might have won or was stabbed in the back by being denied the chance to run until she is completely beaten. It was a big disappointment when, at the last moment, Andrew Cuomo dropped out of the NY gubernatorial primary to deny Carl McCall his triumph.  The downside of Hillary in the race is that she has no shame about behaving like a Republican, and the worst thing about that is that it legitimizes it when the Republicans do the same..  On the other hand, we will soon get to enjoy seeing her finished off by Obama.  The nation will be grateful to him just for ridding us of her.

Oh yes, of course Hillary believes she is going to save us.  What self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, narcissistic, sociopathic liar ever thinks, "Gee, I'm a self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, narcisstic, sociopathic liar?" The all think that the salvation of the world depends on them.  Almost defines the type.

The Hillaristas accuse Obama of having a Messiah complex and then tell us she has to keep running because she believes only she can save us.  Sheesh.  

Run, Hillary, run!  Run for the children of Tuzla whom you saved.  Run for the children of Ireland whom you saved. Run for the peace you brought to the world -- or at least the 80 countries you visited.  Run so that the danger you faced braving sniper fire will not have been in vain. Run so that your lobbyist/strategists can say they have a friend in the White House.  Don't quit!  Ever.

perkowitz--

It's a nice question. I think we speak in order to defend our versions of what is true and good, and becasue unspoken thoughts are not the same as as thoughts that have been spoken to someone else. Giving voice to our thoughts is what we are designed to do.

roidubouloi  said:

"dcshungu,

Your suggestion that the public should just "butt out" and let Hillary run without criticism because the party rules permit it is completely absurd."

No, YOU are absurd. Show me where I had asked anyone to butt out of criticizing Hillary on legitimate issues. Butt out from calling on her drop out? I had said that, and I just explained above why and you just substantiated my point with your civic lesson about who owns the nomination (I hope you did not mean to imply that you and TNR do...) Ease off of the venom that you have been constantly spewing in here? Yes, I did say that because this late in the game, it is counter-productive. We already have a sense for both candidates so that there is no longer any need for sophomoric name-calling and childish venom. We'll all need to rally behind our nominee sooner or later (unless, of course, you are one of those who'd declared months ago that you'd vote for McCain or "sit" this one out if Hillary were to the nominee which won't surprise me at all). But butt out from criticizing Hillary on anything else, like her unsubstantiated Bosnia claims? No, I never suggested that. That would be legit and she should be made to pay for it if she cannot defend herself.

Considering how you personally feel about Hillary, the rest of your post is not only predictably tedious but probably also a disservice to Obama...

Got it now?

If any of you watched the compassion forum on CNN, you had a chance to see Obama in the disingenuous mode that lies very close to the core of his psychology and character, and which perhaps was necessary to the circumstances in which he grew up.

He was asked about his remarks in San Francisco and he said that he was talking about the good and important things that sustain people in hard times--religion, tradions, and family. This is in fact the precise opposite of what he said in San Francisco. There, speaking to the nodding approval of his audience, he said that in sustained hard times people let themselves be diverted by negative distractions like God, Guns, and hatred of the other. Tonight he dropped the guns and hatred of the other and added "their family and their traditions." He converted a list of items that was clearly meant to be negative into a list that was clearly meant to be postive.

The plain meaning of the words in San Francisco was transmuted by verbal slipperiness into the precise opposite. Obama did the same thing a few minutes later when he was asked about saying that he wouldn't want his daughter to be punished with a baby because she couldn't get an abortion.

I have seen Hiilary say things that weren't true or say things that she wanted to believe were true (e.g., vast right wing conspiracy). But I have never seen her engage in the kind of sociopathy that Obama practices so smoothly and glibly (e.g., the examples above, or "I never heard Wright say those things, I never met with Rezko about the house, didn't know he was under investigation, etc., etc.).

He is not used to being looked at closely. He is going to get caught more and more often.

The talk of Obama losing Hispanics in November is overblown. McCain can have Hispanics or Republican activists but not both.

McCain could win many Hispanics over by touting his pro-immigration reform efforts, but then a chunk of the Republican base will stay home, Lou Dobbs will bludgeon him on a nightly basis, and he'll lose. Or McCain can strike a more nativist posture, mobilize the base, and lose Hispanics. While there is a reform agenda that actually threads the policy needle, I don't think there's a way of talking about it that threads the political needle, at least with passions running as high as they are right now on this issue.

And the talk of Obama winning college educated whites but losing the Jewish vote doesn't add up.

And I bet a lot of those working class voters will vote on economics this year, and Obama will smack down McCain.

Obama is fearless:

www.youtube.com/watch

Why did it take a new kid on the block for the democrats to realize that the best defense is a little bit of balls? Rove's play-book of mindless culture wars is roasting on a giant people-powered bonfire right now. What a breath of fresh air.

Hillary says things that aren't true?  Hillary makes up fantasies out of whole cloth.  Remember Tuzla!

Gallup says that the "bitter" flap has not hurt Democratic opinion of Obama at all.  In fact, it says that he is solidifying his lead amongst Democrats at a statistically significant 50 to 41.  Soon he is going to cross 50, the magic number, a clear majority.

Doesn't it just drive you crazy, pccostello, that every one of of Hillary's missteps sinks her in the polls and Obama is so good that he just shakes his off?  He is able successfully to reinterpret his own controversial statements to his own advantage whereas the best she can do, in another blatant lie, is to say that it was late at night and she was confused.

This is EXACTLY why Hillary is the wrong person for the Democrats to nominate.  No political talent whatsoever.  And exactly why Obama is the best choice for the party -- political talent to burn and he is still rising.  Hillary is on the downside of what wasn't much to begin with.

Contrary to pc here, because Obama is such a quick study, he is "going to get caught" less and less often.  It is Hillary who, despite her "35 years of experience," gets caught more and more often in increasingly more preposterous statements and even more preposterous cover-ups of her preposterous statements.  And just wait until McCain, who is on the verge of Alzheimer's now, comes under campaign pressure.  

Nope, dschungu, I don't get it now.  As you see fit to criticize Obama in whatever way you think will stick, it is perfectly appropriate to criticize Hillary for anything that will stick -- and coming soon it is going to be all over her that she is hurting the party because she is a narcissist who cannot bear to get off the stage.  There isn't a shred of a reason why she should not be criticized for that.  Wanting your party to succeed is supposed to be one of the things that makes you worthy of leadership.

If she could run the balance of her campaign by trying to emphasize her own strengths, howevever few they may be, it would be fine.  But, she is legitimizing Republican attacks on the man who is overwhelmingly likely to be nominated by the Democratic party.  That is far more undermining of the future unity of the Democratic party than anything written about in TNR.

The point remains the same:  Your argument that Hillary should be immune from criticism about the way in which she conducts her campaign is patently ridiculous.  Rather than being for some reason immune, she should be criticized relentlessly by everyone who gives a damn about the future of the Democratic party and its success in November.

I actually don't think Harris and VandeHei's arguments are all that solid.  They are right that there are questions about Obama, and he does have real shortcomings, but much of their reasoning is rather suspect.  For instance, they argue that Obama would have trouble among Hispanics because he would be "running against a Republican with a record on immigration that will resonate with Hispanics," but they then go on to say that McCain "would exploit Obama’s current position in favor of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants" to pull away support among low-income white voters.  The authors ignore the fact that attacking Obama on those grounds is not exactly going to "resonate" with Hispanic voters.

They also write, "A Democratic nominee needs big margins with Hispanics to win states like New Mexico, California, Colorado and Arizona."  First of all, if a Democratic nominee manages to win Arizona against McCain, it will be because there is some unexpected development that turns the election into a Democratic blowout.  California is a similar story on the other side.  It's also worth pointing out that in Colorado and Nevada, Obama has polled far better than Clinton among Hispanic voters in matchups with McCain.  See these SUSA crosstabs.

www.surveyusa.com/.../PollReport.aspx

www.surveyusa.com/.../PollReport.aspx

If they wanted an example that favored Hillary, they should have pointed to Florida (although Obama's most problematic demographic there is neither Hispanics nor Jews, but elderly voters in in general).  

There are a few big problems running through this analysis and similar arguments that have been put forth by Clinton supporters.  The first is that Clinton votes in the primary are assumed to be anti-Obama votes.  Bizarrely, Clinton supporters don't seem to acknowledge the possibility that many Hispanic and working class white voters actually *like Clinton* which is good for her, but largely immaterial to how Obama would perform against McCain.

The other big problem is that only one side of the Hillary-as-known-quantity argument is considered.  The argument is essentially that, having been "vetted" over the years, her negatives are at their ceiling, while Obama's is enough of an unknown that there is still room for people to form new negative opinions of him.  There is some truth to this, but it completely ignores the flip side of things.   Hillary's negatives may not be able to rise much more, but neither can her positives.  She presents very little potential for new support because, as the known-quantity argument points out, everybody already knows what they think of Hillary Clinton.  With whatever risk Obama presents comes far more potential for gaining new supporters.  Harris and VandeHei assume that the only place for opinion of Obama to go is down due to right wing attacks, but there will in fact be two sides trying to define Obama in the general election, not just one.

dcshungo--

Very nice posts, right on the mark.

Another two things that should be incorporated into the calculus of what Clinton or Obama would be like in a general election are these:

First, McCain genuinely respects and even likes Clinton, but he dislikes and is contemptuous of Obama, deriding his "ill-founded sense of personal greatness." He would campaign differently against him than he would against Clinton.

Second, Clinton has a record of actually winning over her opponents, like she has McCain and Newt Gingrich (who has praised her "depth and honesty") She truly has a record of working well across the aisle with Republicans and of winning, in her second Senate race, the Republican and red areas of upstate New York that she lost the first time out. This is why it is not a surprise that she in doing well in the primaries with "Reagan Democrats."

On the other hand, Obama's record is actually one of associating with extreme and divisive figures and of inducing extreme haughtiness and contempt toward others in his supporters. He has not in fact reached out effectively to any group that was not already disposed to support him. He has not actually built any bridges--in Chicago, in the Senate, or in this election. His latest remarks are an indication of why he can't do this. He thinks he knows other people better than they know themselves and that he can therefore easliy manipulate them by what he says.

Thanks, ralphnelle.  Obama's political brilliance, on display here, is what drives pccostello and company mad.  He makes Hillary look ridiculous with humor and completely smacks down her attack on him.

dschungu says,

"Ease off of the venom that you have been constantly spewing in here? Yes, I did say that because this late in the game, it is counter-productive. We already have a sense for both candidates so that there is no longer any need for sophomoric name-calling and childish venom."

I get it now.  It is counter-productive for voters to respond negatively to Hillary's sophomoric name-calling because it is "late in the game," but not counterproductive for Hillary to engage in sophomoric name-calling although it is late in the game and her chances are nil.

Uh huh.

Indeed pc, it is not surprising that Hillary does well with "Reagan Democrats" (a shrinking demographic) because she thinks, walks, and talks like a Republican -- still the Goldwater Girl after all these years.  She works well with Republicans because, when it matters, she votes Republican.  Very compelling argument for her as the Democratic nominee.

pc says that obama has not successfully reached out to any groups not already inclined to support him.  How then did he manage to come from being far, far behind Hillary in the polls of Democratic voters to being  securely ahead of her?  He must have gotten SOMEONE to support him.  Oh yeah, I forgot.  By the lights of the Hillaristas, votes for Obama don't count.  Public opinion in favor of Obama doesn't count.  Only votes and opinions for Hillary count.  The only problem with that logic is that, in an election, they count actual votes, not the votes the the Hillaristas think are the only ones that should count.

roid--

You of course won't buy this. But Obama's ability to slip and slide his way out of truthful and genuinely revealing information about him (like Wright or Meeks or Rezko or his remarks in San Franciso) is a mark of a degree of sociopathy (not extreme but present), or at least guile, which is almost never visible to the observer because it is done so well. That, and the racial anxiety of the press in covering him. Hiilary's difficulties with overcoming her slips and errors has more to do with a lack of guile and with, I think, a certain nagging personal insecurity. she is inartful in her deceptions, as honest people usually are. Remember, Hillary and Bill have been tithing an above average 10% of their income to charity for years. Obama contributes a below-average 3%, and almost all of that goes to Jeremiah Wright.

roid--

Just read your last two posts. Now you are just blathering. You know how he got as far as he did (read Vanderhei and Harris, so I don't hvae to summarize it) African-Americans and small enclaves of very liberal whites in non-Democratic states, espcially those with caucuses. And Clinton's and Obama's actual postions are very close on almost all the issues. She is obviously not a Repblican.

I gotta go. Done for tonight.

Perkowitz,

That's an interesting question.  Personally, I don't really think of this type of discussion as a way to convert people to my point of view.  If people who disagree with me happen to be persuaded by my arguments, that's great, but that's not really the main point.  It's not about "winning" the argument.  I believe that two people with opposing views can argue about something, and each leave still maintaining his original stance, but having gained something from the conversation.  It's important to understand where other people are coming from, and I think that understanding other views helps you better understand your own.  So while lymon isn't going to convince me to vote for Hillary, and Chan isn't going to convince me to vote Republican in November, both of them often have very insightful things to say, and those are things that I would miss if I just tuned out once people had made up their minds.

Well pc,

I wouldn't want to get into criticizing Obama's charitable giving versus the Clintons.  They just made $106 million while he remains a man of no great wealth.

By your definition of sociopath, every politician is a sociopath.  That might be so, but then we need to redefine terms.  Hillary's difficulties in overcoming her "slips" is that the things she gets caught on aren't merely the poor choice of words but wholesale fantasies.  No one could recover gracefully from those.  Anyone who wasn't playing a few cards short would never make such claims in the first place.

In any case, even if we grant that what you say is true, if one is going to be deceptive in political life, it is sure as hell better to be artful about it, giving yourself room for maneuver, than to be so artless that you always get nailed.  This to me is just additional evidence of Hillary's utter lack of political talent and skill.  And it is no wonder.  Even if you have some native ability, you have to practice your chops in some real elections to get the hang of it.  Believe me.  Hillary NEVER had to do that.  She was handed her Senate seat in a state with a 2:1 Democratic enrollment.

What I cannot for the life of me figure out is why you prefer that the Democrats nominate someone who  has no political graces to someone who is loaded with them.  If there were some significant reason to deplore Obama's policy views compared to Hillary's at least it would be understandable.  But there isn't.  On the other hand, the evidence is overwhelming that the public prefers charismatic politicians who talk in large themes -- "morning in America" "compassionate conservatism" -- to policy wonks like Hillary.  We should be grateful that Obama has appeared on the political scene when he has -- unless that is you are secretly a McCain supporter.

Talk to some small-towners. They will tell you that the real condescension in all of this is coming from Hillary, McCain, and the lapdog media who are breathlessly reporting their drivel this weekend. "Why do they think we're so stupid?"

The low point really has to be the "we're not bitter" bumperstickers or buttons or whatever. Seriously. No, seriously.

Part of me wonders whether Obama deliberately stoked this flame. Yes, let's ask some questions about this stuff: who's the real candidate for the people, the one who's received record $ from lobbyists or the guy who used to work the streets of Chicago for the unemployed? Who's the authentic one, the guy who effortlessly makes fun of himself for being a bad bowler, or the one who claims she's always had a thing for guns?

This HRC campaign really has reached new heights of self-parody. Keep it coming, guys. It's great fodder for Comedy Central.

lonestarpedro  said:

"The talk of Obama losing Hispanics in November is overblown. McCain can have Hispanics or Republican activists but not both.

McCain could win many Hispanics over by touting his pro-immigration reform efforts, but then a chunk of the Republican base will stay home,"

Unlike the far-left wingers who had given us Bush by voting for Nader because Gore was not ideologically "pure" enough, the far-right has no such fantasy. They are about winning elections, and won't sit out because their standard-bearer has espoused a cause or ideology that they do not openly support. Evidence for this abounds but just two pieces would do: (1) despite their open initial hostility toward McCain, the far-right has now toned it down (muzzled itself up is more like it), and will be turning out on election day to vote for him; (2) Bush screwed up royally but they stuck with him through thick and thin, including driving off the cliff with him during their mid-term drubbing. The Repubs do not eat their own...It is the Dems who are cannibals.  

McCain will carry BOTH the Hispanic and the base votes against Obama...

Noam,

I encourage you to write the piece you outline here. Everyone will read it, and the dems will be well served by the reminder that the Clintons are toting a couple tons of unchecked baggage.

roidubouloi  said:

"Nope, dschungu, I don't get it now.  As you see fit to criticize Obama in whatever way you think will stick, it is perfectly appropriate to criticize Hillary for anything that will stick -- and coming soon it is going to be all over her that she is hurting the party because she is a narcissist who cannot bear to get off the stage."

I know you do not get it, which is why we are done because I am tired of your tedious venom. Early on, we all had engaged in some of that, but now, especially for some us who support Hillary but would back Obama for the GE if he is our eventual nominee, your rant is passe and no longer welcome. Go on with it; I will just skip over your posts  henceforth. In fact, your negativity makes little sense, since you're so sure Obama has got this thing locked up... unless this is, of course, what it appears to be:  a sign of someone in the active throes of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Good luck, mate...

"Obama's ability to slip and slide his way out of truthful and genuinely revealing information about him (like Wright or Meeks or Rezko or his remarks in San Franciso) is a mark of a degree of sociopathy"

Oh for Pete's sake.  Is this your first election, pcc?  Sociopathy? The worst you can say about Obama is that he is doing what all skillful politicians do, which is to deflect and defuse negative coverage by changing the focus and narrative of the coverage through guile, charm, misdirection and a dash of whimsy.  Some can do it (e.g. Bill Clinton), and some can't but all want to do it.  Hillary would love to be able to do it but she can't it just isn't her thing.

I guess if she could, she would be a sociopath, like her husband.

Sociopathy?  she can't.  .  , including zhillaryt.  (not extreme but present), or at least guile, which is almost never visible to the observer because it is done so well. That, and the racial anxiety of the press in covering him. Hiilary's difficulties with overcoming her slips and errors has more to do with a lack of guile and with, I think, a certain nagging personal insecurity. she is inartful in her deceptions, as honest people usually are. Remember, Hillary and Bill have been tithing an above average 10% of their income to charity for years. Obama contributes a below-average 3%, and almost all of that goes to Jeremiah Wright.

"yeah... is the point that bill took money from CORPORATIONS? Maybe that's something that would make John McCain angry, but probably not your average GOP crossover voter."

I don't know.  Your average GOP crossover voter is pretty solidly middle-class, and works their fanny off for an entire year to make half or less of what Bill Clinton pulls down for a 1 hour speech.  $150,000/hour is the equivalent of $300 million/year, from a 40 hrs/week working stiff's perspective, which puts the Clinton household firmly in the obscenely compensated C-level camp.

Of course McCain can't personally say much about that, being married to money himself, but you don't think the swift-boaters of the world won't?  It's straight out of Rovian politics 101 to attach your opponent where you are yourself vulnerable.

thanks for the responses. I had my chance to vent.. I guess I should just continue enjoying the greatest reality show we have going right now. sure beats "dancing with the stars"

ralphnelle, thanks for that video clip.  It confirms to me something, I said about Obama a few weeks back: he know how to play the dozens.  His mother may be white and his father an absent Kenyan, but Obama clearly has paid his dues on the South Side.  

'Annie Oakley!'  'Duck blind!!'  Though Chicago has seen this before in the person of Harold Washington--and others too this non-Chicagoan imagines--but it's entirely new--and welcome--in American presidential politics.  Clinton can't hold her own against this man and neither can McCain.

dschungu,

Please do pass by everything I have to say.  I, however, shall not pass by your raving as you are not in any event the intended audience for what I have to say.

Thanks for the good wishes.

Well pc,

Since Obama wins MORE of the demographics that are important to the Democrats than does Hillary, which is why he is winning, it is difficult to argue that he is a poorer candidate in the general because he is not winning the demographics that are important to the democrats.

Also, while you claim that Obama is vulnerable in the general election because he has not gained significant ground with certain key demographics, the contra-argument is that, while Obama has held his own across the board or gained, Hillary has LOST significant ground with key demographics.  Remember the days when the polls had her up by 30%?  Well, she fell to 9% behind him by LOSING support from millions of people who were initially inclined to support her.  This is not evidence of political strength -- squandering an enormous lead.  It is evidence of weakness and incompetence.  Or, take it as evidence of his political brilliance if you like.

The problem pc is that, however creatively you spin it, and you do, Hillary is losing, by every metric, and Obama is winning, by every metric.  Claiims that the loser is actually the one who is winning -- or that the loser, by virtue of being the loser,has the better chance to win in November -- just don't cut it.

On show after Sunday pundit show the over-fifty white guys with weak faces talk about this "close" contest in order to juice their sagging ratings.

Check out a few facts from the online world:

www.adotas.com/.../obama-walloping-clinton-online

Obama is walloping Sen. Clinton online. On "Meet the Pundits" Carville referenced a favorite movie of his from the '70s, "Deer Hunter", to capture how Hillary gets Pennsylvania and Obama doesn't. What would a Boomer think of those millions of Americans under fifty who haven't seen one of their coming-of-age films?

If you want to witness elitism up close and personal, have a Boomer spend an hour, which will feel like a lifetime, tell you about his favorite movies, his favorite books, blah, blah, blah.

Time for a Change.

On show after Sunday pundit show the over-fifty white guys with weak faces talk about this "close" contest in order to juice their sagging ratings.

Check out a few facts from the online world:

www.adotas.com/.../obama-walloping-clinton-online

Obama is walloping Sen. Clinton online. On "Meet the Pundits" Carville referenced a favorite movie of his from the '70s, "Deer Hunter", to capture how Hillary gets Pennsylvania and Obama doesn't. What would a Boomer think of those millions of Americans under fifty who haven't seen one of their coming-of-age films?

If you want to witness elitism up close and personal, have a Boomer spend an hour, which will feel like a lifetime, tell you about his favorite movies, his favorite books, blah, blah, blah.

Time for a Change.

As a staunch Obama supporter, I will confess (pc - this one's for you) that I cringed when I heard Obama's steriotyping of what poor small town whites must be feeling and how their bitterness drove their attachments to religion, guns, and anti-immigration and anti-trade positions.  It reminded me of his comment about his grandmother having a fearful reaction like "a typical white person".  Plus, if being anti-trade is a pathology, what does that imply about Obama's own anti-trade position?  Frankly, I regarded this as a much more serious gaffe that the Wright episode: in the latter, the offending words were not Obama's--they were someone else's; in the former, the odious steriotyping came out of Obama's own mouth.  I seriously feared he might have done himself in.

Apparently, my fears were unwarranted.  As roid and pc have both said, Obama has done an artful job of  reframing his characterization of small town, white bitterness into something understandable and their attachments to something positive, rather than pathological.  Once again, Obama has landed on his feet.  His ability to survive and transform adversity gives me hope that he will be able to do this to whatever slings and arrows, even self-inflicted ones, come his way in the general election.

Call me a "Boomer for Change."

Call me a "Boomer for Change."

Indeed, JackR, indeed.

Remember when we Dems used to complain that Reagan was the "Teflon man?"  The reason was that, whatever words were coming out of his mouth, he managed to convey an attitude -- of openness, concern, genuineness -- that people responded to very positively.  As a result, they didn't take his mistakes very seriously.  Many people refused even to hear them.  That is the Gold Standard in political life.  It seems that the Democrats may finally have discovered their own Reagan.

Am I the only one who noticed the incredible similarity between Hillary's approach and the GOP's? Right down to the homophobic dogwhistle about "San Fransisco".

"sociopathy that Obama practices so smoothly and glibly"

Where do I begin? Why even bother, it's too easy. Stories about running across tarmacs, when in fact she was greeted with a poem and flowers. Or "35 years of experience" as a corporate lawyer, a cattle ranching speculator, loser of Rose Law Firm files, tolerator of her husband's sexcapes, or as the governor/president's wife? Fiction can be fun.

Face it, the race is over and has been for over a month. Praying for a bolt of lightening from a blue sky is a waste of your time.

Yeah, because San Fransiscans are not "real" Americans. Real Americans! Diners! Bowling! They are another species, fetishized by Chris Matthews, patronized by Clinton, "you're resilient!" who both see them as Adam and Eve before the apple - simple, unreflective, unselfconscious, like elk. Matthews, Rousseau-like, envies and romanticizes them. Clinton just thinks she can play them. Listen to her voice in these speeches to the Reals lately - slow and overenunciated, as though she's visiting a kindergarden. She's extremely simple herself, in a way.

Speaking of "bitter," do you think the quarter of a million Bosnians who waited for Godot--er, Bubba--to intervene in their country are "bitter" because Hillary still hadn't finished fucking up health care?

Are they "bitter"? Oh, wait: they're "dead." Never mind.

If Clinton supporters found Obama to be as irrestible as the media does, they wouldn't be supporting her in the first place  I personally think he's an arrogant jerk with no qualifications.  There's no law that says I or anybody else has to vote for him.  He might want to keep on making his case without all the condescension.  He could use the practice.  Right now he's looking like a gaffe-prone amateur and big-time loser.

williamyard, OUCH!

Maksutov66, fine. Vote for McCain in November. I don't care. In two months Hillary will go back to one of her palaces and Obama will either win or lose in November. Them is the breaks. Deal with it, but spare me your whining.

Perkowitz - to your q, this is the only place I feel comfortable posting, mainly because the comments here are of an exceptionally high caliber and because we can disagree civilly, with a lot less tribal snark than is found at even the best political forums.

Actually, in my more self-regarding moments I entertaint he hope that I may influence a few minds on these boards, including some that may influence other minds in a position to influence the influencers of the candidates. So often I'll post something 3 or 4 times on different threads in the hope that one of these stray seeds may actually germinate, become a TNR Meme, and from there sprout into something that can live on its own.  

More specifically, I have an ingrained hostility to bullsh*t of most forms, along with a belief that our national debate is corroded by BS. I have long believed that Obama dishes out much more BS than his supporters care to admit, and that his glibness masks a fundamental weakness, as a candidate and as a political leader, that will leave him vulnerable to the GOP in the fall as well as render him ineffective should he gain the White House.

Just my view, and it's probably cost me more than a few (online) friendships thus far, but c'est la vie.

t