Yup, Hillary is just as bad, or worse, than we have been saying all along.  Doing her best to sink the Democratic party.  Now it is up to her key supporters to abandon her and up to the party leadership to unite behind Obama, get the rest of the supers to do so too, and get her supers to switch, for the greater good.

Once he has a majority of 500, maybe she will get the message and just shut up.  Or maybe she will finally exit political life as this pathetic, ranting lunatic.

You people are so vicious towards Hillary I am about to cancel my subscription to this magazine. Get a life.

 That Outrageous, Delusional Clinton Speech ?

It's your comments that have been delusional, dude.

Clinton won most of the primaries in the last few months and all the big swing States. She even S. Dakota were Obama was supposed to win.

Yet, and yet the super-delegates have anointed  Obamarama as the Party's standard bearer. This is what is delusional. They would rather "make history" than win the white house.

Get a grip, Noam.  He won the thing, but she was only a hair behind. The superdelegates put him over the top tonight, orchestrated to coincide with the last two races.  She deserves the right to bow out in her own way.  She doesn't have to do it on his schedule.  

"Yet, and yet the super-delegates have anointed  Obamarama as the Party's standard bearer."

Yeah they "annointed" him, and they did it by voting against the person with the most pledged delegates after every single nominating contest was held.

Oh, wait . . .

As we heard in 2004 at the Democratic Convention, it is "time for them to go."

Yes she does have to do this on his schedule. BARACK OBAMA IS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, not Hilary Clinton.  She needs to keep up with his schedule.  If she wants to be VP, she will have to keep to his schedule, and she has shown that she is incapable of doing that tonight.

Learn how to count jackson.  Of the last dozen primaries, all since TX-OH-VT-RI (which Obama won 3-2 as TX had both a primary and a caucus), Hillary has won 6, Obama has won 5, and one was tied.

That means that of the races since February, which is when she effectively lost the nomination, it has been fought to a draw, 8-8-1, and that is despite the fact that the races have included TX-OH-PA-IN-WV-KY, as good a hand as Hillary could ever hope to have.  She barely gained any ground in the pledged delegate count.

It is because Hillary counts like you do that she is a loser.

Learn how to count jackson.  Of the last dozen primaries, all since TX-OH-VT-RI (which Obama won 3-2 as TX had both a primary and a caucus), Hillary has won 6, Obama has won 5, and one was tied.

That means that of the races since February, which is when she effectively lost the nomination, it has been fought to a draw, 8-8-1, and that is despite the fact that the races have included TX-OH-PA-IN-WV-KY, as good a hand as Hillary could ever hope to have.  She barely gained any ground in the pledged delegate count.

It is because Hillary counts like you do that she is a loser.

Only the most delusional Clinton supporter could be pleased by her speech. She loses and loses and loses and denies, denies, denies. But tonight set a a new low. History has been made. She says it hasn't. It's time to move on, to unite the party. She says it isn't over until she says it's over. She should be tossed from the party for her ignominious behavior.

The Clintons are a vast political machine practicing the worst of crony capitalism.

Time for a Change.

I'm not sure I understand your first point, Noam. About the second point, I agree, it's pretty bad. Not to mention that it's an abdication of leadership under the circumstances. In part, though, it was a clever way of getting people to go to her website and contribute money without having to beg quite so obviously for money as she has in other recent speeches.

All in all, I thought it wasn't as egregious a speech as the rhetoric in the TNR headlines suggests. Maybe the pundits here should do what Reid advised the uncommitted senators to do: back off, give Clinton some time, even a few days, to figure out how to make her next step before jumping down her throat for not outright conceding tonight. While I would love to have seen a concession, it might be more effective to her most dug-in supporters (wrt bringing them around to a unified party) to take it a little more slowly. Just giving her the benefit of the doubt here.

Jacksondyer,

Obama has won more contests. He's won more delegates. He played by the rules and came out the victor.

Clinton has done well. Very well. But at the end of this contest, Obama has done better. It is time for her to acknowledge this simple truth. Yet, when given the opportunity to show her class, her dignity, her character, she said "screw you, Barack Obama."

Well, back at her.  

"It is because Hillary counts like you do that she is a loser."

We'll see who loses in November, dude.

Hey, roid. This isn't helping. Note how Obama responded to Clinton and her supporters tonight. That's the way to go. Seriously. It's over, no matter what Clinton did or did not say in her speech. And Nikkiwhite's right.

"She deserves the right to bow out in her own way."

But she doesn't deserve the right to imply that Obama didn't win--which is exactly what she's doing.

And so what, jackson, if the election is close.  It ain't Florida 2000 close, i.e. there is no statistical ambiguity about who the winner really is.  And who cares whether by this or that metric she came out ahead?  By the only metric that counts--total delgates--and several others besides, she lost, and there is no positive way to spin the objective fact that she is unable or unwilling to acknowledge that reality.  Clinton's speach tonight is the apotheosis of her Big Lie strategy.  What on earth does it mean for her to say that the 18 million people who voted for her must "be heard?"  What statement have those 18 million voters made--in the context of the primary election, I mean--other than that they wish for Clinton to be the Democratic nominee?  And what, therefore, would it mean to "hear" that statement other than to anoint Clinton as the nominee?  For Clinton not to concede--and concede NOW, not "in her own time"--serves no purpose other than to sow discord and confusion, and as such it goes beyond blackton's formulation of being bat-shit crazy, it is, to put it simply, evil.

Hillary's supporters say she needs time to figure out what to say and whether or not to concede.

What nonsense.

She has lost, period.  By the rules, Obama has won, getting more delegates than she did.

When you have lost a party primary you concede quickly and move on ... particularly if you share a common interest in defeating the candidate of the other party.

If you don't concede and join forces with your adversary in the primary, you are (that is, Hillary is) helping the other party.  To put it simply, she is bad news, an example of how not to behave.

Regardless of how magnanimous Obama must be in public, in reality for the sake of the Democratic Party -- and the welfare of the country -- he must destroy her and her key supporters who follow her lead on the non concession.

As someone who spent that entire speech yelling "What the hell is she doing?!" every two minutes, I have to say that that may be the most graceless concluding speech to a campaign I've ever seen.

I say that while remembering John Ashcroft's speech in 2000 upon learning that he'd lost his Senate seat to a dead man and did not so much concede as rant, red-faced, that his seat had been stolen, as his ability to form complete sentences dwindled and he finally frothed at the mouth on live television.

Yeah, it really was that bad.

As the losing candidate in a long and bitter nomination battle, she gave a victory speech. She highlighted every damaging, dividing lie she's been peddling this entire campaign. She said she'd won the popular vote. She said that the voters chose her as the most qualified, most prepared candidate for President. She told her supporters that they were invisible before her candidacy, and that she (and apparently she alone) can see them, and presumably fight for them. She said that she won the states necessary to get to 270, implying that Obama did not, and presumably thus cannot win. And finally, in the face of overwhelming, crushing loss, she held her head high and said "I will make no decisions tonight." And then asked people to visit her website, where they will be asked for money to repay her loans.

She has made clear that she will not support her party over herself. Already a creature of obvious selfishness, she is prepared to become a new creature-one of pure spite, existing only to incite and divide the country she claimed to cherish. I have little doubt that in her coming private meeting with Obama, she will threaten him and demand the Vice-Presidency; I was almost surprised that she didn't announce her candidacy for President as an Independent in tonight's speech. It certainly would have fit.

She can't be gone soon enough.

I just checked the NY Times front page.  Thankfully, it's all Obama.  He's the nominee, Clinton barely an afterthought, with little more than some "News Analysis" addressing what her role might or mightn't be.  Her speech doesn't get any attention at all.

That's awfully selective quoting in that first sentiment, Noam.  How about some more context?

It sounds there like she's staking her entire candidacy on individual health insurance mandates.  Which, to me, exemplifies several of the least attractive qualities of Clinton as a presidential candidate.  But as much as the Clintons disgust me, I really don't think she's *that* politically tone-deaf.  That's such a lousy choice of issue to cite as a reason for prolonging a bitter primary, when there are a few genuine reasons why she can claim to be a better candidate than Obama.

I still support Obama, for many more reasons, but I really did think her experience was impressive and promising.  And even though her tall tales and boasts started becoming horribly deranged, I think that was a much more powerful message than quibbling over a minor disagreement over health care policy that'll probably disappear after the lobbyists and Congress get through with either plan.  This sounds like a repeat of that spat with Jim Cooper in the early 90s - Hillary might have even been right to oppose Cooper, but she handled it as badly as possible.  In my more unemotional moments, I try to attribute that to inexperience.  I'd like to think she's more cautious and diplomatic now. . . am I trying too hard?

Nippers,

I have a different take on this.  Certainly, as the candidate, it is Obama's responsibility to embrace all elements of the party and to be gracious to his defeated opponent.  On the other hand, I don't think for one instant that anyone is going to vote for or against Obama in November because of what his supporters do or do not say.  However, the party and Obama cannot spend the next phase of the campaign trying to placate Hillary Clinton, who is implacable in any case.  We do not need any more attention directed at Hillary Clinton, who will continue indefinitely to do whatever she can to take attention away from Obama and keep the spotlight on her sick, private drama.  She has to be pushed off the stage, and right soon, because she is never going to go willingly.  Never.

That means that the party leadership needs to understand that we are not all going to sit around here waiting for the kumbaya moment with Hillary that ain't happening.  They need to round up those supers, get them to declare for Obama and start moving them out of her column into his column so that her drama is simply OVER.  What's more, her big backers need to get the message that if they sit around with her nursing their grievances, they are going to miss the train and be left out in the cold when there is an Obama administration.  So, I happen to think that it is the responsibility of the rank and file of the Democratic party to push back on Hillary, to let her and them know that we are disgusted, until her supporters escort her away.  

PeteBeck is exactly right.  To be president, you have to be ruthless.  Obama will need to make clear, via surrogates to be sure, that it is time to get on his train or not, and that anyone who doesn't will be left behind.

The transfer of power is NEVER smooth unless it is being handed by a mentor to a chosen successor, and often not then.  But the power has to move to Obama now if he is going to win the election.  And for it to move to him, he and his notables in the party have to take it.  NOW!!!  That means the proper gracious nodding to Hillary and then off with her head if she will not bend the knee.  They have to roll over her as if she is not there.

It's all moot.  NBC just reported (around 11:30) that Obama has more than 2119 delegates.  That's enough to win even if you count all of Michigan and all of Florida and if Obama gives up those 4 delegates that Ickes (wrongly) claimed were hijacked.

Right now, Obama should just ignore Hillary as should all Obama supporters.  Without the oxygen of attention, she will fade into the background and in six weeks Obama will polling well enough against McCain on his own that he can pick a VP of his liking and not her.

roidubouloi said

"That means the proper gracious nodding to Hillary and then off with her head if she will not bend the knee.  They have to roll over her as if she is not there."

Bring it on.

Wow

Clinton's speech? Disgraceful and unforgivable. Arrogant and narcissistic. And so unnecessary.

I hope this gives Obama ample reason to not select her for his VP. And who wants to see that aging satyr, Bill Clinton, creeping about? Just the thought of him on the same stage with the Obama family makes my stomach turn.

Terry M., Lanny D., James C. and Paul B. - what a horror show.

I wonder if anyone else noticed this remarkable formulation: "... we stayed the course together."

She actually used Bush's signature delusion-enabling phrase on Iraq -- "stay the course" -- to describe the persistence of her campaign.

?!

I'm sorry, but that's just surreal. Who wrote this speech?

The Clintons Threaten

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../the-clintons-th.html

[The speech tonight was a remarkable one for a candidate who has lost the nomination, though not remarkable for a Clinton. It was an assertion that she had won the nomination and a refusal to concede anything to her opponent. Classless, graceless, shameless, relentless. Pure Clinton.

Her narcissism requires that she deprive her opponent of a night, or a second, of gratification or attention. And she has now won, in her Bush-like version of reality, 18 million votes. Her invitation for her supporters to email their suggestions to her website is pure theater, a way of keeping herself in the spotlight and maneuvering her delegates to demand a second spot on the ticket. The way she is now doing this - by an implicit threat, backed by McCain, to claim that Obama is an illegitimate nominee if she does not get her way - is designed to humiliate the nominee sufficiently to wound him enough to lose the election.]

There was nothing whatsoever illegitimate or out of bounds in this speech. This race was about as close as they come, and she and her supporters have every right to demand respect.

Noam, you guys (esp Crowley) desperately need a break from this stuff. Why don't you take a stab at writing about Russia for a change? Venezuela? Japan? Djibouti?

roid,

I'm talking about tone and style, not the substance of the argument. I don't mean to concede anything when it comes to substance. Obama won. Hillary should concede, and if she wasn't ready to concede tonight, she still should have delivered a more gracious speech.

But Hillary and her campaign were Obama's opponent, not Hillary's supporters. I want the many reasonable, thoughtful, disappointed Hillary supporters out there--some of whom I know personally--not to feel condescended to and attacked as if they were enemies. There are plenty of good reasons why Democrats were reluctant to support Obama. He--and his supporters, if they care about the party and November--should do what they came to make them less reluctant. I'm not really talking about jacobt1 who seems like a lost cause, but about silent readers who read these boards and form impressions that they do not voice.

Thanks for the update, Noam. I see what you're getting at.

Nippers,

Conciliation begins after the battle is over.  That requires not only formal, legal victory, but that the loser not wage a guerilla war, as Clinton is doing and threatening to do.  I quite agree with Andrew Sullivan on this, as linked above by AaronBBrown.  

There is no means for Obama to push on the Clintons directly.  He therefore needs to gather the support of the notables, especially Pelosi who is, after Obama, the most important party leader, and get to work cutting Hillary's inside support out from under her until she has nowhere left to stand.

I have never, I hope, demeaned good Democrats for supporting Hillary Clinton despite my own opinion of her.  I have not the slightest doubt that 99.9% of her supporters believe in the cause of the Democratic party and support her because they believe that she would best advance that cause, even though I myself do not believe that of her.  But, if they are good Democrats, they have a responsibility too.  That is to accept the fact of defeat graciously and to reject her if she does not.  THEN it is appropriate to pat each other on the back and move forward.  We cannot have the party being held hostage to those who decline to accept the reality of Obama's victory, including first and foremost Hillary Clinton.

AND she committed political suicide tonight...I'm a lifetime Dem, voted for Bill twice, voted for her in NY, but I now I wouldn't spit on her if she were on fire.  And I'll bet I'm not the only one.

What a sad, pathetic spectacle.

What was so disappointing about this speech was that I know that Clinton has it in her to be gracious and classy.  It hasn't been her normal M.O. this campaign (and I think that's a part of why she didn't win), but we saw it in the California debate, and again in the Texas debate when she said "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama."

She had a perfect opportunity to show that side of herself tonight, speaking at the end of a historic campaign, and instead she just gave a stump speech.  What a let down.

Here is how it go from now. Three scenarios:

1. The Republicans have some nasty tape of Michelle Obama and of Pfleger.

One week after Obama wins, two things happen:

- the Michelle Obama tape hits the waves

- McCain selects Condi Rice or Colin Powell as VP.

From then on, the Republican path is simple:

- show ads with Obama and Wright, Obama and Ayers

- fend off attacks of racism by pointing at Condi Rice the or Colin Powell as the Republican VP candidate.

Of course, the Obamistas would readily forgive him for Wright - that is, thoise that don't actually love the two... However, the general election is not decided by the faithful, but by those middle American voters that sits the border between Democrats and Republicans and decides the elections. And those voters might take it badly to hear Obama's mentor Wright shouting from the roofs that the US government gives AIDS to blacks.

2. The Michelle Obama tape shows up before the Democratic convention. As a result, the Democratic superdelegates change their vote and select Hillary.

In his next move, McCain selects Condi as a VP, which helps him in this scenario too. Then he accuses the Democrats of nominating, via backroom deals, someone who has actually lost the primaries. He fends accusations of sexism by pointing at Condi Rice, the VP candidate.

3. There is no Michelle Obama tape. In that case, it looks just like scenario 1, without the Michelle tape but doubling the viewing time for Messrs. Ayers and Wright.

Note that the three scenarios have little to do with the animosity between Obama and Clinton. But they have everything to do with Obama's radical mentor and associates.

They also are predicated on the hypothesis that McCain is smart enough to select Condi Rice as VP candidate and that she will accept.

fougasseu " And who wants to see that aging satyr, Bill Clinton, creeping about?"

Classy Obama supporter.

Let's see, if the most recent vote margins I've seen hold up, Obama will get more of a popular vote margin out of Montana than Clinton will out of South Dakota.  The popular vote argument will go away (again, if those margins hold up, which is not a given).  

With the time-release capsule of superdelegates today (nice bit of political theatre, that), apparently Obama has managed to amass enough of a margin that even a Credentials Committee decision to overthrow the Rules Committee decision and give full votes to MI and FL would not deprive Obama of the necessary numbers to claim the nomination.  So much for that.

The lack of any concession in tonight's speech can only be interpreted to mean that Clinton has not ruled out some kind of "nuclear option" whether that means a move to flip Obama superdelegates (by whatever means necessary, presumably), or  some sort of smear campaign against Obama, or hell, being John McCain's running mate for all I know (he practically wrote her a love letter in his speech tonight, after all).  As long as there's no "he won" or its equivalent, I have to assume all of those options or others beyond my capacity to conceive are still on the table.  

Is that what I, a registered Democrat for less than a year, should be thinking tonight?  And yet what else can I think?  

An Open Letter to Senator Hillary Clinton

Dear Senator Clinton:

I was proud to serve under President Clinton as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. No one in history did more to increase the diversity of the ranks of United States Attorneys than Bill Clinton. More African American US Attorneys served at one time during President Clinton's administration, (more than a dozen and probably twenty over the course of the administration) than under any previous administration. Moreover, President Clinton's administration took into account the views of this extraordinary group of African American United States Attorneys on some of the most important issues affecting the African American community, including the crack cocaine / powder cocaine enforcement disparity, crime prevention initiatives and civil rights enforcement issues, with specific focus on the rash of arsons against predominantly African American churches that occurred during his term in office. He appointed an outstanding African American Chief of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, Deval Patrick, who now serves as Governor of Massachusetts. He appointed another talented African American lawyer, Jim Johnson, to oversee the law enforcement agencies that serve the Treasury Department. Finally, he appointed Eric Holder Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

It is against the backdrop of these extraordinary contributions to the African American community by President Clinton that I have witnessed your campaign for the Democratic nomination. In my view it is the most racially divisive since the Willie Horton gambit executed by the father of our current President. Stripped to its essence, the theme of your campaign has been that America is not ready to elect a Black President. Assuming that this were the current reality, it is the hallmark of great leadership that such realities are not accepted, but rather changed. You have been a partner at a deep south law firm. If a major client of your firm expressed a disinclination to have a Black associate assigned to their case, would you have championed the cause of your well-qualified associate and encouraged your client to accept him, or would you acquiessed in your clients have  racist refusal to accept his services?

I believe that it is absolutely appropriate for you to stress those aspects of your experience, talent or judgment that you believe separates you from Senator Obama and makes you a better candidate for President. But the fact that you do not draw the line at using race as a distinguishing factor - the fact that you have not affirmatively declared - "America may not be ready for an African American president, just as they have not in the past been ready for a Catholic, or a woman - but we are going to have a conversation with the American people that gets them ready" - the fact that you cannot place this important principle ahead of your personal ambition is profoundly disappointing at the very least.

I have favored the candidacy of Barack Obama because I do believe that he offers the opportunity for transformative leadership. The fact that this extraordinary individual could be a living symbol of America's readiness to embrace a racial or ethnic minority as its President is a factor as well. That said, until about eight weeks ago, my support of Senator Obama did not signify any rejection of you, Senator Clinton. That has changed.

You are running out of time to demonstrate that your recent conduct is merely the result of being exposed to the vapors of the election "silly season." In my view, your standing as a leader of the Democratic party and our nation is at stake.

Zachary W. Carter

Former United States Attorney, Eastern District of New Y

It was a "kiss my ass" kind of speech, very similar to the way that Jesse Jackson behaved in 1988 and 1992 (with much less justification).  Remember pundits asking "what does Jesse want?", and Dukakis inviting him over to dinner to ask if he was interested in VP?  Jesse's egomaniacal grandstanding in '88 didn't hurt his career, I don't see why Hilllary's now should hurt hers.  

Obama's slim chance of victory in the fall will be ruined, however, if he caves and actually chooses her as his running mate.  Finally, his roller-derby queen of a wife may be good for something: steeling him up to the task of putting the white bitch in her place.  

While I feel the post is hyperbolic, I have to agree with the basic sentiment - Hillary does not appear to be willing to concede graciously.  I am willing to give her about a day, but waiting any longer is simply unacceptable.  Regardless of the desires of her supporters, it is now clearly her responsibility as a Democratic presidential candidate to fall in line behind the nominee.

Sleepy, why don't you wait to say "I told you so" until what you've told us comes true?

For months Clinton supporters such as yourself have been telling us how the next round of primary elections were going to turn things around for your candidate, how this or that "scandal" or "gaffe" was going lead to the collapse of Obama's support, and now that that string has run out, all you're left with is predictions of Democratic wow for the general election.  You're like the alcoholic husband in the joke about the 80-year-old virgin, sitting on the edge of her bed on their wedding night, telling her how great it was going to be.

"woe" not "wow."  To which I can only say wow, how awful.

Nope, tep, you're wrong on this one.

Yes, Clinton voters deserve respect.  Hell, George Bush voters deserve respect.  But the insinuation that these voters need to be "heard," that Clinton needs to go around and meet them and hear from them in order to decide how "to move forward," is harmful and uncalled for.  These voters HAVE been heard from.  Their votes were registered, and they made it a very close election indeed, but their candidate lost.  It is her place now to admit as much and to say clearly for all to hear that the candidate who won, Barack Obama, provides the best "way forward" towards achieving the goals that Clinton voters care about most deeply.  The fact that she failed to say anything of the kind reflects most poorly upon her.

aeromonas, I think you're in denial. I liked Hillary very much and I still hope to see a Democrat president, even the Obama I don't like. I do however have a grounding in reality - and that reality is Obama's radical past.

You may shout at me as much as you please - this  is who Obama is.

As for the alcoholic husband comparison, I find it inexcusable and for that I have complete contempt for you as the uncivil person you are. It is not surprising though. This has been the standard experience in TNR with Obamistas. You may be good at shouting, but decibels don't win elections. Votes win.

And it's there that Obama will lose - not with you, who might like him even if he showed up with a Che Guevara T-shirt, but with  the sitting-on-the-fence American voter that dislikes a Marxist terrorist like Ayers or a racist like Jeremiah Wright.

Moreover, it would be good for you to stop lying. I have not said that she will win. I have said that she has the right to continue her campaign and that attempts to throw her out are undemocratic. I stand by my comments. I have also not said anything about scandals and gaffes and you are simply inventing from nothing here, as you often do. What I did say is that the general election public is different from the primaries, and that the GE public will be disgusted by Obama's racist mentor and terrorist associate. I stand by my predictions. You should stop lying.

Roid: Your self-knowledge is improving. The description at the very end of your last post fits you perfectly.

hey, sleepy,

Yes, Obama supporters here and elsewhere can be uncivil. But the man does not have a "radical past," anymore than Clinton does because of her youthful tenure at a lefty law firm, or because Bill pardoned two members of the Weather Underground.

Listen, I can see why you might be disinclined to any time soon, but sometime between now and the convention, would you consider at least skimming Obama's first book, the one he wrote more than a decade ago, Dreams from my Father? Even his reasons for choosing his church make more sense than you might think.

nippers, I read some of that book - 50 pages in a bookstore. The man is an impressive writer and maybe I'll read it all. But I don't care about the reasons, I care about the facts: he stayed with them for 20 years and called that evil guy Wright his mentor. That's bit much, don't you think?  Watch some sermons of Wright's and you'll get the point.

sleepy,

Fortunately, neither Wright, nor Ayers, nor anyone who shares their political views is running for President.  Obama does not have a "radical past," unless by "Obama" you mean "people other than Obama." Wright is a problem, but by no means as big a problem as you are making it out to be, particularly not by the time November rolls around.

A few other things: you write, "I have also not said anything about scandals and gaffes" a grand 52 minutes after speculating about some damning tape of Michelle Obama, and *in the same post* that you talk about Ayers and Wright.  If those were not references to scandals or potential future scandals, what on Earth were they?

As to the claim that "attempts to throw [Clinton] out are undemocratic," could you explain how that is the case?  The way democracy typically works is that people vote, the winner wins, and the loser concedes, or petulantly refuses to concede and gets "thrown out," so to speak.  People have voted.  More of them voted for Obama. He's one by every measurement that isn't patently absurd (counting Michigan as a 328,000 to 0 win for Hillary falls under the category of "patently absurd" and it is the only calculation that would give her a popular vote win).  Now that all of the votes have been cast and counted, what is "undemocratic" about wanting her to concede that Obama has won?

Lastly, I would suggest being less strident.  It's a bit ironic reading you criticizing other posters for being "uncivil" and "shouting" in a post doing those exact things.  If you think there should be more civility in the conversations here (and I wouldn't disagree, although the level of discourse at TNR is a huge step up from most political blogs), then it would be good to set an example yourself.  People take you more seriously when you aren't personally insulting them.

I have so many things I want to say, but its too late and I simply don't have the time to cover everything:

Clintonistas are right, she does not technically have to concede her candidacy until after Denver.

Obamistas are right, there is a signficant chance that HIllary will polarize the democratic party with her identity politics and cost Obama the election in November.

Obamistas are allowed to dislike Hillary Clinton; they are also allowed to voice that opinion, often with associated argumentation, as that is the point of this forum. If you find their argumentation lacking in credibility, then take up the mantle and call them out. That is another reason for this forum.

Clintonistas are allowed to have all sorts of doubts regarding the presumptive Democratic nominee, especially considering the prevalence of weight given to years of experience as governor and/or senator.

Some people need to remember that in November someone will be elected as POTUS, and that someone will control the destiny of America for the next 4 years, and no matter what choice is made (Democrat, Republican or stay home), that choice will contribute to the outcome and will bring the blame or praise that follows.

If Wright is a racist, Hagee is a homophobic sexist.

If Ayers counts, then so do all of McCain's lobbyist allies, past and present; there is nothing that cannot be said of Ayers that cannot be said of McCain's lobbyists.

Alan SP, what exactly do you mean by being less strident? Aeromonas compared me to an alcoholic 80 year-old... there followed some sexual part. Yet I didn't reply to that really dirty sketch other than by pointing that he is uncivil. Closer to the point, how credible do you think you are when you chide me for being strident? I haven't seen you telling Aeromonas he is strident - instead, you said it to me! Apparently aeromonas-style really dirty tactics are just fine with you if used against those you disagree with.

As for Obama, let's looks at the facts, shall we? He launched his political career in 1995 the house of the terrorist Bill Ayers. You may not care for it, but my bet is that is the GE public will. Obama also chose Wright as a mentor and he proudly stuck with him for twenty years. Twenty years! For a man who says judgment more than experience, this shows terrible judgment.

Clinton was asked by the press and by TNR supporters on these talkbacks to give up months ago. That WAS undemocratic.I said all the time that if he is a winner, let him win. So he won - good for him. The point that she did get across, is that she had a chance and she lost by a hair. A candidate that is close to 50% is not a marginal candidate, no matter how you try to portray her. She's not a winner, because he got over that 50%. But she cannot be dismissed lightly.

The tape refers to Michelle Obama and Pfleger. Maybe it's wrong, but maybe it's true - after all I heard Michelle Obama say pretty idiotic and really nasty things already. But don't you think it's ridiculous to rebuke this possibility so forcefully? Obama's supporters have accused Hillary of wanting Obama dead and have portrayed her as a  murderer-in-waiting. That is far worse than my expectations of Michelle. These lunacies were peddled by Crowley and the other rabid journalists - and by TNR talkbackers on multiple threads here in the last week alone. I haven't seen you protesting that.

me, shouting?  I simply asked you to save your "I told you sos" for when the things you predict have come to pass.

And if you can't handle a comparison to a character in a joke, or think that such is "uncivil" then you're thin skinned indeed.  

By all means, though, keep on telling us how great--or in your case how terrible--it's gonna be.  I'll save MY "I told you sos" for November 4.

And as for me lying, WTF?  I said Clinton supporters SUCH AS you.  I don't keep a log of your posts, nor I hope do you keep a log of mine.  If you haven't predicted a Clinton turnaround, mea culpa, but others of your ilk most certainly have.  And you ARE predicting an Obama meltdown.  Feel free to flame me into dust when it happens.

I almost forgot one really important tidbit, Wright is technically a hater, not a racist.

I have confirmed this issue of racism with experts in various fields of ethnic and gender studies; basically racism requires that the actor be a part of the racial group that enjoys privilege within society. Thus, only white people can be racist in America. There is a decent little blurb on racism at www.reference.com/search which will interest those who actually care. The legal and sociological definitions are most poignant to what I'm saying.

sleepy,

It's not meant to be chiding; it's meant as advice.  Take it or leave it (I'm guessing you'll leave it).  For what it's worth, I would and have said the same thing to Obama supporters when the discussion breaks down into personal sniping.  Part of the reason I come here is that I like the thoughtful discussion here; if I wanted shouting matches, I could go anywhere practically anywhere else on the internet.  Aeromonas, as far as I can tell, was making an analogy to the punchline of a joke, not calling you an alcoholic 80-year old.  Not everything that people here say is meant as a personal slight against you, nor is it anti-Hillary bias.  A few days ago, you were insulting Crowley because he showed a map of the Kerry-Bush states rather than a cartogram, then claiming that other posters were ganging up on you because you support Hillary, when nobody had even mentioned her.  I'm just saying that you'd be better off ratcheting down the tone a bit.  When you disagree with someone, just explain why.  No reason to call them a liar or an idiot or a cultist or whatever.

"Racism:  The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race."

Oxford dictionary

"Racism:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"

Merriam-Webster dictionary

These English definitions make Jeremiah Wright a racist. They make even more of a racist of the man that Jeremiah Wright recently honored - Louis Farrakhan.

noam, nikkiewhite, jacksonsnyder, roidumachin, et al,:

time to focus:  john mccain is the bad guy.  if you need someone to hate and to badmouth and to campaign against, it's him, not "the other" democratic candidate.

With that speech, Hillary proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she's not fit to be president. Vicious, petty and unmoored from reality. Worse still, it's clear she has no intention of helping Obama.

dont know why we are surprised, time and again HRC has been given an opportunity to be classy, to unite the party, to show why she really is selffles in her quest.  And almost without exception, she has chosen the classless path. I am so disappointed, as an early supporter. the only ones laughing now are Republicans. Once again the Democratic party will snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory, because of the ego of one woman.

Sleepy,

How can we convince you that it is not Rev. Wright running for president, or Ayers, but Barack Obama, the former editor of the Harvard Law Review (not particularly known for its racist publications), a community worker in South-side Chicago, having, on multiple occasions, built bridges between whites and blacks, and a US Senator. Do you really believe that a man with such an organisation, such an appeal and such an enthousiastic movement behind him (you will most certainly agree with me if I say 'incluing the media'), will let himself be brought down by two microscopic moments in his life? I cannot see that, so please try to convince me. Many Republicans and Dems have poured praise on him for being able to build bridges between different parties. His whole campaign is focused on unity, and over 18 million people voted for him, and for his message. Then how legitimate are claims that he is a polarizing, racist figure?

Lastly, I post this as a question, not as an attack, so I would appreciate it if you would treat it like this.

People get a grip already ... Obama's polling 7 points ahead of McCain in South Carolina!

Oh Noam, I fear Crowley and Chait have turned you into one of them.  I hope it was just the moment...

Yet another case where 1) Hillary is wrong and missed a great opportunity and 2) TNR goes off the rails and blows it entirely out of proportion.  

exactly, dbhuff. There is no excuse for being disappointed or outraged by anything Hillary says or does. It is simply irrational at this point to expect any degree of good behavior from Hillary. Asking "Why doesn't Hillary do the right thing?" makes as much sense as asking, "Why doesn't the Joker admit defeat to Batman?" Why? Because he's an lunatic mass-murdering clown. It's who he is; his behavior follows from his character, and anyone expecting differently is a fool. Thus with Hillary -- who, to her credit, is not a homicidal clown. One character is what one does. Hillary's actions since 2006 and most especially since January 2008 have shown her to be a person of exceedingly poor character. Thus to have expected good-character behavior from her is unreasonable.

I've always presumed her actions to be driven by a character roughly equivalent to George W. Bush, and so I have not been disappointed, or particularly surprised, by anything she has said or done in this campaign. I have also assumed that her supporters are competent enough judges of character to understand this and embrace her precisely because they feel that a Democrat with George W. Bush's character is either more likely to win in November or more suited to governing as president. The passive-aggressive Bush admiration thing has actually been quite overtly evident among many of the early Hillary supporters I know.

Anyway, point is, anyone who expected any degree of class or grace or even honesty from Hillary last night hasn't been paying attention.

Also, memo to Hillary: Give that boy his bike and his video games back. Well, maybe just the bike. That story is just so sad, and it makes me angry every time I hear it. You don't take money from children who sell their toys, and you don't then brag about in effect taking a child's toy away. I mean, honestly. Even for Hillary, that seems kind of low. If someone sold her cats to the vivisection lab just to raise some money for Hillary, would Hillary pocket the cash and try to sell that as a heartwarming story too?

Arsonplus, have no fear--at least about me--I'm not afraid of the damage Clinton seems hellbent on inflicting upon Obama's candidacy, I'm just disgusted.  No election is ever a lock, but I'm way more confident about BHO's chances this year than I was about Bill Clinton's in '92.

Time for Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, et al to step up and speak out. Obama doesn't need Hillary Clinton, he needs smart, powerful, committed women to rally to his campaign. Love to see an interview with Tipper Gore. Time for some strong and respected Democratic women to come out for Obama.

Carville, this morning, used an unfortunate metaphor when describing his reluctance to support Obama. "I'm still in that cave in Okinawa" waiting for the word to come out. There was an irrational, suicidal loyalty displayed at Okinawa, a failure to grasp the reality of the situation. Odd how these speed talking pundits inevitably reveal a bit too much of their inner selves. Obama would be best served to not let any of Clinton's true believers join his campaign. Cut them all loose.

Time for a Change.

Snippets from all three candidates speeches last night.

Honestly, rhubarbs, they should just turn this whole magazine over to you to write and edit.  The quality of the thinking and the writing would improve dramatically, and it is way above average now.  That was, in my opinion, the best and most insightful of your posts yet.  

I have also noted any number of times, as have others, similarities between the circumstances and personalities of Hillary and W, but I have always sort of taken it for granted, reflexively really, that this is an obvious and enormous knock against her.  I admit, somewhat sheepishly, that until reading your post it had not occurred to me that the combination of Bush's personality with an ostensibly center-left ideology (although I remain deeply suspicious of Hillary's ideological bona fides) is actually the very basis of her appeal to many people.

That brilliant insight explains a great deal about the tenor of the campaign and the nature of the arguments between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters.  Thanks.

I agree wholeheartedly with Nikkiwhite.  This magazine - columinsts, editors, and in particular, editor in chief have  been vicious towards Clinton.  Just last night I was looking at the issue with Hillary on the cover - the cover  with all the made up crazy-power-obssessed-bitch quotes floating in balloons around her head.  Compare that with the oh-so-reverant Obama covers "why you love him", and the Michelle Obama puff piece, complete with her decked out in Jackie Kennedy's pink suit and pill box hat.  Super Woman.  Who quit her job and hired domestic help.

I'll vote for Obama in November and hope that Sen. Arugula doesn't bring us down like Gov. MIke "Belgian Endive" Dukakis.

Definitely, fougasseu.

Obama needs to keep far, far away from Harold Ickes, Lanny Davis, Carville, McAuliffe or they will drag him down.  A hearty, "How ya doin?" if they happen to cross paths should suffice.

There's been much talk about whether McCain would represent Bush's third term, but I think last night shows why Hillary would be as much of a Bush third-termer as McCain. She's unmoored from reality, still floating creative facts, arrogantly determined to push through her agenda, messianiac in her sense of righteousness, oblivious to the calls of others, and indifferent to what's ultimately best for the country.

Is it any wonder why Karl Rove has been promoting her candidacy the last few months?

Dubya: It was Brussels Sprouts, not Belgian Endives.

The reference to "Senator Arugula" is quite fascinating in a publication pitched at a largely Democratic and hugely educated and accomplished crowd. (I'm in awe of some of the analysis, writing and experience that people bring to the discussions here.) I am not going to go into the whole elitism thing - it was and continues to be so ridiculous that it does not merit further discussion, and in fact Hillary's anti-economist comment and the backlash to it put paid, I hope, to that line of thinking - but rather, something more fundamental: how the "arugula" mocking references betray a basic lack of understanding of economics and the market.

After all, Obama - unlike Dukakis - was not offering an idiotic and ignorant suggestion to farmers.  Dukakis goes to a cornfield and suggests that they raise Brussels Sprouts, unmoored from any practical or market considerations.  Obama goes to the same cornfield and makes a point about economics and the market: have you been to Whole Foods?  Do you know who much they overcharge for their products?  Do you know how successful they are?  Have you thought about attacking that market?

Why do we expect our leaders to be economically ignorant and to pander to economic ignorance whenever they get the chance?

In fact, the thought came to me this morning that the campaign to get Republicans to vote for HRC in Democratic primaries has to some degree paid off.  Not completely of course -- but I sense that, now that Nader's gone from the stage, the Repugs would do what they could to have Hillary as the Democratic Ross Perot of 2008.

Alot of folks quick on the trigger here.  Hillary was making her case for VP - to her supporters, Obama and the American public.  A proper concession and the best way to build party unity and momentum can only be done with both sharing a stage and making good political theater - considering the timing and turn of events, this couldn't have taken place last night.

Aero - fari point on being "heard from" and voting. In Russian the verb for voting stems from the root word, "voice." When you vote, your voice is heard, by definition.

However, I don't think anyone can deny that this election cycle's tsunami of sarcasm, bile, and yes, sheer hatred has been overwhelmingly directed at not just the Clintons but also their supporters. I never thought I'd see so much contempt voiced on TNR for ordinary working-class people, not to mention educated women who support Hillary.

Obama-shmooping, puff pieces for the TNR journos' fave candidate? Fine, that's to be expected. They've run anti-Obama pieces, too, esp the (in my view) withering pieces by Wieseltier and also thoughtful analyses by Judis.

But what's new, different and disturbing is the blogger m.o. that's infected the campaign coverage, including TNR's coverage. If the commenting functionality for the non-blog articles on tnr.com were at all useful and user-friendly, I'd largely ignore the TNR blogs (PLank etc) and comment there. But it's a kloogey, troll-infested, days or weeks-delayed ride through the articles section of tnr.com so we're left with the TNR blogs.

And the TNR blogs are a nonstop hatefest directed at Hillary and her supporters. To my mind, that's disappointing, a real loss. I expect better from TNR. THen again, I suppose we're all sarcastic little bloggers now, arent' we?

tep,

There may have been more bile hurled at Hillary than Obama, but her supporters?  Who's been attacking them?  Here on these boards, Obama supporters have been called cultists, robots, and any number of other derogatory terms.  As for the TNR writers themselves, their focus has been primarily on the candidates and other figures involved in the race; I haven't really noticed them write much about the candidates' supporters except to talk about who makes up their respective bases.  Sure, there was Eve's article on the hardcore Hillary supporters at the RBC protest, but I can't really think of much else that could reasonably be interpreted as displaying "contempt" for her supporters.  Maybe you could clarify what you mean or point to some examples?

I'm sorry, tep.  I think that is grossly at odds with reality.  Many Obama supporters have been very tough on Hillary, in part because many of them had no use for Hillary long before Obama came on the scene.  Her voting record in the senate isn't exactly nothing.  But to the extent that one group of supporters has expressed ridicule, animosity, hatred, toward another, it has largely come from the Hillaristas and been directed towards Obama's supporters.  

Is it really so soon for you to forget all of that "Kool-aid drinker" crap?  You engage in this yourself.

All of us are entitled to our opinions about the candidates, even very strong ones, however expressed.  Characterizations of other good Democrats in negative ways should be out of bounds, but you invert history in attributing that to Obama people -- unless that is like some others here you are so personally identified with Hillary that you cannot distinguish an attack on her from an attack on you.  That, however, would be your problem.

I don't see the TNR blogs as a nonstop hatefest towards the Clintons. The blogosphere seems to me to be a kind of smoke alarm, going off whenever someone smells something funny. Starting with George Allen. It has been commented on often that Bill Clinton seems to have forgotten that there's a new kind of campaign atmosphere, where everything is taped and/or photographed - and lands online, unedited.

Some of the hatefest is Boomer fatigue, Clinton fatigue, and contempt not for the working class, but for the Clintons' exploitation of the working class.

Now if you want to see a real hatefest, check out the real thing at davidduke.com. This is what Obama will have to deal with.

http://www.davidduke.com/

Teplukhin2you: You are absolutely correct. Of course, the delusionals out here will reject what you say out of existential necessity. I am a perfect test case of your assertion. I was a supporter of Hillary but I bailed because I thought that she was conducting herself in an increasingly unprofessional manner. I have been considering supporting Obama. Is that good enough out here? Oh hell no. Because I express scepticism of the Great One and point out the anti-Hillary vituperation and hate of the mad-hatters, I am scored for incivility. These genuises never call each other down on their excesses. Pseudointellectual fellatio will never cease as long as hominid forms walk and breathe, particularly in this clubby high-school locker room milieu.

Roid: I am entitled to my opinion? Why, thank you, sir. It is a pleasure to make the acquaintance of the 21st century incarnation of the First Amendment. I agree, too, with your praise of rhubarbs' post. The pop cultural reference nailed it for me. I am envious because I know I shall never write like that. The man is a veritable Lee Siegel.

Frankly, I think she is simply unsure what to do next. She does have her "army" to account to. If she had conceded and dropped her bid entirely last night, I think many of her supporters would feel betrayed. She's in a pickle, no doubt about it, one of her own making, in addition to her feeling responsible for bowing out gracefully at some point, but not necessarily at once.

However, her dilemma is characteristic of her leadership style, and is one of the main reasons I haven't felt comfortable with the idea of her being Chief Executive. From overconfidence in herself she overshoots her goal at her own risk. Not a great moral failing or anything like that, but she hasn't produced much evidence to suggest she's learning her lessons. Hopefully her disappointment this time will prove a good teacher, so she can really become as effective as she has every good reason to be.

Clinton is acknowledging the reality that has been revealed to many of her supporters, and to her through them, during this campaign. That for a very long time now, they have been essentially "invisible" to the Democratic party establishment.

For many women who have faithfully voted Democratic, whether the candidate at the top of the ticket was our preferred candidate or not, and contributed time, money, etc., to the party, this primary season has been both a revelation and a disillusionment. (A revelation that has less to do with Obama personally, much to do with with the behavior of the party as a whole over a long period of time.). It has explained why, despite 42 (out of the last 50) years of dominance in Congress (much of that time including control of the Senate, too), 12 years out of the last 40 in control of the Executive branch, etc., the Democratic party has made so little or no progress on the issues that have been of vital importance to us, to the welfare of our families, to the survival of the American middle class, to the ability of the poor to move into the middle class; health care, wage equity, child care, family leave, etc. And, why we have gone backward on reproductive rights.

The reason is now crystal clear; the party’s (primarily male) establishment does not, and has never, seen these issues, or our interests, as vital interests. (Or, seen us as a vital and respected constituency.) They have merely paid lip service to our interests and issues -- appealing for our votes based on little more than empty promises and, most important, this threat; "the Republicans will be worse."

(Although so far, in actual performance, the Republicans haven't been especially much worse -- most of the betrayal has come from our own side.)

But, the fact that the Republicans are worse in terms of ideology and rhetoric, if not always in practice, is no longer enough to make the Democrats' performance (or lack thereof) acceptable. Not when we have example after example of our Democratic leaders selling us out TO THE REPUBLICANS on these issues over the years. Not when now -- in the most explicit way possible -- the depth of their disrespect for us not only as voters BUT AS PERSONS has been revealed by the mostly unchallenged, and too often defended, misogyny of this campaign season.

It  is no longer enough to threaten us with a further undermining of Roe v. Wade -- the party deserves to be punished for how much it has already allowed Roe v. Wade to be undermined.

And don't tell us that a candidate who has run explicitly on "reaching across the aisle" especially on these kind of "divisive" issues (that to him are merely "cultural"), intends to fight for women's reproductive rights. In fact, don't tell me that the mostly male writers here at TNR who will bemoan the fact that some may no longer respond to the Roe v. Wade whip actually consider any woman's reproductive rights that much of a vital interest.

These issues, the issues that ARE of vital interest to women, are EXACTLY the issues that "bi-partisan" compromisers like Obama and those elements of the party establishment who encouraged his candidacy have always been first and foremost willing to throw out the window and under the bus.

Sorry guys, but if CanWest were to ever fix the "search posts" function I'd be able to furnish dozens, probably hundreds, of examples from these very threads of TNR posters and bloggers alike sneering at "toothless" "stupid" "racist" "Appalachian" "menopausal" Hillary supporters.

And no, I didn't vote for Hillary, I voted for Obama. What is so profoundly irritating is the way this debate always, or almost always, descends so quickly into demonization of OtherSide, into playground rumble mode, Sharks vs Jets. I didn't care for it when it was Red-on-Blue Blue-on-Red, but I find it really annoying,  and depressing, when it's Blue-on-Blue. A pox on both our party's houses.

,

esmense,

That's a rather thin argument.  You are essentially saying that Obama is going to turn his back on the issue of reproductive rights based on nothing but the fact that he has said he wants to reach out to Republicans.  His record for his entire career has been staunchly pro-choice, and he has no policy differences with Clinton on this matter.  Hillary, too, has said that she has a record of working with Republicans.  So did her husband.  Does this say anything about their stance on these issues?  I would say that it doesn't, though you may disagree.

If Obama wants to "throw these issues under the bus," it seems odd that he has had ample occasions to do so and passed up the opportunity every single time.  If his stated positions and his record of backing them up with his votes don't convince you, what would?

Tep:

Being opinionated as Wieseltier would say is the mark of engaged citizenry.

Granted the criticism flung around from the posters is sometimes acerbic enough go beyond the pale. What I hope for though in the months leading to the GE is a bit of tone control from our chief writers Scheiber and the gang, and for that I wish they look to ex TNR writer Hertzberg once in a while. That said the Spine in any tone is always a great read.

liberal,

Atlhough you have lately come to see yourself as a persecuted victim, "scored for incivility" for the substance of the opinions you express about Obama, that is objectively untrue.  You have been scored for incivility when calling other posters names and leveling personal insults, i.e., being uncivil, which you do often, with provocation and without provocation.  What particularly grates on many is that you do this while lecturing everyone on civility and declaring yourself to be the epitome of civility and gentlemanly behavior.  

No one has attacked you for criticism of Obama.  

engaged, good. enraged, bad

tep,

You simply draw no distinction between criticism of the candidate and attacks on the candidate's supporters for their support.  The former have far outweighed the latter on both sides.  I happen to think that personal attacks on Obama's supporters have been in the majority, but it really doesn't matter that much because for the most part it is the candidate's who have been the targets.

That seems to be your real objection, one that I reject as inconsistent with robust democracy.  If you hold yourself out for public office, the public gets to criticize your freely.  The responsibilities of the candidates, party officials, and journalists are somewhat different.  But if I want just to declare that so and so is a bum, it is not out of bounds.  It may not be very persuasive, but it is not out of bounds.  

You are not going to hound anyone out of criticizing Hillary (or Obama) by mischaracterizing it as an attack on supporters.  

If you actually go to the HRC website to leave her a message like "PLEASE go away already" you get directed to a form that starts with "I'm with you Hillary, and proud of everything we are fighting for." My guess: regardless of whatever message you think you are sending, what they get in the in-box is subject "I'm with you Hillary and...etc" enabling them to claim no doubt later today that they received thousands of e-mails supporting HRC...

I wonder if this was supposed to be "...and proud of everything for which we are fighting"  but that was considered too elitist for the shot-and-a beer Hillary.....

esmense,

You and others no doubt are going to vote your identity group grievances, or withhold your vote.  So be it.  Any expectation, however, that there is going to be some general rhetorical effort here to placate you or ameliorate your sense of grievance is sure to be disappointed.

In my opinion, you stand right at the fault line of the Obama-Hillary disagreement.  He asks the most legitimately aggrieved group in America, the descendants of our slave class, to set aside their grievances and work together for the common good.  Hillary invites everyone who has a grievance to nurse that grievance and vote that grievance and insists that any failure to acknowledge that grievance to the satisfaction of the aggrieved is oppression.  And you intend to do just as she asks.  She is indeed your candidate.

Have at it.

Yes, Tep -- and it would be useful to include the hero-worshipping content from the pro-Obama posts as well...

roi - numerically literate as you are, you know as I do that there's an easy test of your proposition-- easy for any normal community website, that is. Without a working search function here, we're stuck with your and my impressionistic assertions.

That said, my posts make clear that I've repeatedly, often harshly, attacked Hillary and her husband's campaign tactics, which are probably the most important reason that I didn't vote for her.

"Robust democracy" depends on a certain level of good faith, of not constantly and reflexively impugning the motives of those with whom you disagree. Another way of putting this is to assert that there are no saints and no demons, only politicians who are, every one of them, a mix of egotism and public-spiritedness, ambition and thoughtfulness, calculation and vision.

Me, I think the tendency to demonize OtherSide is the second biggest barriers to progress in American public life today. The main barrier is the tendency toward denial, fibs 'n' fairytales, lurid exaggeration for political effect and other bloggerish behaviors. I don't view Obama as free of such a taint.

Geez, Lisah, she lost.  If you think all these posts had something to do with it, why that would be just fantastic.  I hope it is so.  Are you really going to rehash the entire blog history of this campaign?

Again, another straw man we have to continually wrestle to the ground (too early in the day for mixed metaphors, I know!) is this bs about "hero-worshipping."  Care to offer any examples (even roughly remembered ones), evidence, proof, anything at all LISAH apart from just stuff that you say?

What can I say, tep.  I don't impugn the motives of Hillary's supporters.  I assume the best and I am hardly in a position to judge their motives and have no interest in doing so in any case.  Hillary on the other hand is a different story.  I have watched her in public life for a long time, as you have no doubt, sometimes from right up close.  I don't like what I see.  For some time now my working hypothesis has been that she is merely self-aggrandizing and does not have any commitment to the agenda of the Democratic party. Since I tentatively formed the view, which was not at all what I thought when I voted for her in 2000, everything that she has done has tended to confirm my opinion and nothing she has done has tended to soften my opinion.

I do not think she has good motives.  Her behavior, at least such as I am in a position to observe, confirms me in my view.

"she is merely self-aggrandizing and does not have any commitment to the agenda of the Democratic party"

You and I part company on the war authorization, fair enough, but on almost every domestic issue I can think of Hillary is squarely within the party's consensus. And on the issue of issues, universal health care, there simply is no party leader who is more closely associated with that cause. Your comment implies that Hillary's commitment to UHC is a ruse, that she'd abandon it at the first sign of trouble. That seems more than a little far-fetched, IMHO.

Sleepy,

The Oxford English and Meriam-Webster dictionaries are excellent references sources on matters of vocabulary. However, there is a reason physicians do not pull out a copy of the OED when attempting to diagnose a patient, nor accontants when calculating net profit, nor many any other professional in America when performing their job. In that same vein, your reliance on the OED is inadequate for an actual discussion of the issue of race, race relations, ethic studies and racism into which I have drawn you. Case in point, by the criteria you have set forth, specifically regarding racial-discrimination, you are yourself to be considered a racist; you have commented repeatedly regarding your negative conclusions regarding Wright and his religion, without having done so regarding various white pastors and their religion of which there has been ample opportunity; this is textbook (dictionary?) discrimination. I am well aware that this would be an incorrect assessment of you, but that just proves my point that your criteria are inadequate for a real discussion on the real issue.

"These English definitions make Jeremiah Wright a racist. They make even more of a racist of the man that Jeremiah Wright recently honored - Louis Farrakhan."

These "English definitions" to which you've adhered qualify most people as racist, including yourself and several other posters to this website. I was actually aware of how you came by your conclusion from our previous discussion, and that is why I have started this one. Your methodology for classification is signficantly flawed and someone such as yourself should care to put more effort into being accurate and specific in such matters.

Also, doing so will help in future discussion when people decry the apparent unfairness of the labelling of racists as such, since the criteria I am presenting is the missing factor in these peoples' understanding of who gets called a racist and when.

Finally, neither I nor this qualification defends Farrakhan by any stretch because, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, in the view of Judaism as a national and racial identity, anti-zionism and anti-semitism becomes a qualification to the title of Racism. However, Wright has disowned Farrakhan's anti-zionism/anti-semitism publicly, at the NAACP press conference, and has no other connection to anti-semitism than the history of the religion he embraces (a history he has also denounced publicly).

roiduboiloi --

You don't understand a single thing. This is not about "identity." It's about the vital political and economic interests of more than half the population -- and all those whose depend on and benefit from their care and support. It is not about Obama. It is about whether the party that has claimed to stand for those interests, and appealed for votes on the basis of that claim, actually has over time performed as advertised.

If you think women are an "identity" group and that their interests exist in some sort of vacuum separate from the best interest of the nation at large, including the interests of Americans of ALL races and classes, then YOU are the one who is looking at the nation's social, economic and political realities from an extremely limited and absurdly aggrieved position.

The color of Obama's skin does not matter. The performance, or lack thereof, of the Democratic party in terms of the vital issues I outlined, issues that affect every American, does.

Roid: Helpful and insightful post on the "fault line of the Obama-Hillary disagreement".

The reaction to Obama's speech last night has been electric around the globe. Will this be the first globalized presidential contest? Will another fault line be the Obama-McCain race vis-a-vis the international press? Will McCain be vilified in the international media (and will that help him) and will Obama get glowing coverage (and will that hurt him)....

I'd say the test for Hillary--whether for example Roidu's working hypothesis is correct to some degree--is what she does over the next few days. I had mixed reactions to her speech last night, felt some of the feelings that animate its criticism, yet also find persuasive the idea that she lost by an incredibly small margin (and arguably won the popular vote) and needs a little time, say a couple of days, given all she has been through, her legion of supporters and the theoretically fluid circumstances,  to unwind her campaign and support Obama. (See the persuasive analysis of her speech by David Kusnet in the these cyber pages.) I think she sent a positive signal at her speech to AIPAC today, as LISAH noted. My bet is she will before the week is up be gracious in conceding to Obama and unifying behind him. If she truly tries to become a doomsday machine, a dog in the manger, a stone in his shoe, then I will rethink my view of her, say I for one was was wrong and grant Roidu the substance of his hypothesis.

That aside, with this I could not agree more as a general proposition:

..."Robust democracy" depends on a certain level of good faith, of not constantly and reflexively impugning the motives of those with whom you disagree. Another way of putting this is to assert that there are no saints and no demons, only politicians who are, every one of them, a mix of egotism and public-spiritedness, ambition and thoughtfulness, calculation and vision....

This is in fact an Obamian notion too, sitting at the heart of his idea of good faith negotiations.

tep, you write: "Me, I think the tendency to demonize OtherSide is the second biggest barriers to progress in American public life today. The main barrier is the tendency toward denial, fibs 'n' fairytales, lurid exaggeration for political effect and other bloggerish behaviors. I don't view Obama as free of such a taint."

Heartily agreed, though I will add only that Obama the candidate has in my assessment done more than any politician I can think off to break free of that tendency. I do hope the demonizing stops. TNR is a refuge of intelligent discourse compared to most political blogs, thanks to the filtering power of the requisite magazine subscription. I hope it can remain a refuge.

esmense,

Obama won millions of votes from women. His real weakness has been with white women, especially white women older than he is--though I know plenty of women in that demographic (most of the women in my family) who are supporting Obama. So it's misleading to cast Hillary as the sole representative of "the vital political and economic interests of more than half the population," even if Obama and the Democratic party were neglecting those interests, which they aren't.

Basman, that was very well put.

well, esmense,

At least I "don't understand a single thing."

Tep, I am not saying that none of the positions that Hillary takes are within the Democratic mainstream.  I am saying rather that I observe that she acts out of expediency, in her own behalf, and that she is more than willing to sell out Democratic values when it is expedient.  And I think her instincts are very much to the right.  We have her war vote, her bankruptcy vote, and her sponsorship of an anti-flag-burning bill as examples.  Politicians take all sorts of positions in the course of a political campaign that don't mean a whole lot.  They are indicative of their governing philosophy, but you have to interpret the rhetorical claims with reference to the behavior in office when there is history.  On big issues (not that there have been so many in Bush's administration because mostly we have had legislative stasis combined with bureaucratic meltdown), Hillary's record is not very good.  It makes me question whether, as I usually put it, she is genuinely "of the left" or indeed whether she has any political principles at all.

Nippers --

I did not in any way suggest that Hillary is "the sole representative" of "the vital political and economic interests of more than half the population,"

What I said is something entirely different -- that the Democratic party, in practice, has failed to keep its stated commitment to those women and their vital political and economic interests.

If you disagree with that statement, present some proof for your position.

Other than with rhetorical grand gestures, esmense, just what do you mean by "failed to keep is commitments to women"?  In what way?  On what issue?

Nipper --

Let me remind you of a little history; women were included in the Civil Rights act only as a joke -- by a Democrat who hoped that inclusion would defeat the bill. It was Republican women in the Senate who were determined that women would remain included and who worked hard for the bills passage. Roe v. Wade, of course, was a Supreme Court decision that in no way relied on the support of the Democratic party. The Republicans serving now on the Supreme Court who it is assumed would weaken Roe v. Wade if given a chance could not have been seated without Democratic cooperation.

Roid: In your solipsistic cosmos I have not been attacked for supporting Obama. But in the really-existing world, I have. Read the threads. I will assist, if necessary. Not only that but I have been called an Obama-hater, which I most certainly am not. Unlike you, I do not have the capacity to hate.

esmense,

I'll ask again: what does any of this have to do with Clinton or Obama?  You are totally ignoring everything that Senator Obama has ever said or done regarding the issue.  And the only support you've offered for this view of him is that he wants to reach out to people of both parties, and that other Democrats decades ago have disappointed you.  Yet your faith in Senator Clinton does not seem to have been shaken by these same concerns.  Is she no longer part of the party? Does she not also tout a record of bipartisanship? Her husband was the poster boy for compromises with the Republicans.  Did he encroach on women's rights?

LR:  Unlike you, I do not have the capacity to hate.

Oh yes, of course.  Well, that reminds me of something (apologies to Clarke and Kubrick):

"As you know, Dave, the Liberal Reformer 9000 series was designed without the hate generator.  I can assure you that all uncivil statements on the TNR site are by others.  Nothing I say could possibly be taken as uncivil --  I have reliable data on that.  Please desist from what you are doing, I cannot allow this to happen . . ."

[Dave finally begins to close down LibRef's central processing unit]

"Would you like a game of chess?  I play chess very well."

"Daisy, daisy"

I meant to comment on McCain's speech last night but got distracted by that other speech . Anyway

I've read the threads, liberal, and it is perfectly apparent that you are abusive and often initiate attacks on posters without provocation.  Various people have caught you doing it.  I have yet to read anyone taking you to task for your substantive opinions about Obama, or anything else for the most part, because you seldom express a meaningful point of view.  Most of what you say is just holier than thou gobbledy-gook -- "written in crisp prose replete with intellectual references," of course, as you constantly tell us about your own writing -- that comments on the commenting rather than making any point that might be of interest to anyone.  The rest of the time you just say amen to something someone else has said and pat yourself on the back for it, as if your seal of approval is of some importance.  Hell, on one thread, you even allowed that, "you yourself" thought that Freud had a point about projection.  I get a great big laugh out of that one, imagining Freud thanking the liberal reformer for his kind words.

Between your abusive behavior, your unenlightening meta-commentary, and your amen choruses, there really isn't anything of substance to which anyone could take offense even if they wanted to.  There simply isn't much there there.  However, the hectoring and the lecturing from you is certainly irritating to more than a few.

Noam, take a pill.

Roid: You are hilarious. You are like a snarling junkyard dog and you accuse me of jumping people. You and your brat pack are an incestuous clan. Talk about the metaphorical hills of Kentucky. If I were abusive on your side of things, would you be calling me down? Am I the Pope? Of course my "metacommentary" is uninteresting to you because you are a literalist. You are the stereotypical guy that women forever carp about, the one who cannot see the elephant in the room , right in front of him. The perfect torture would be to lock you in a room with Kafka. I didn't say that Freud had a point on projection. You can't even manage to get that right. Freud had every point on projection. There was a great colloquy on Freud that a number of us engaged in on the Spine a few weeks ago. One of the profound posters there was the person that bloodies your nose all the time: Mr. Jacksondyer. Several of the participants there were subtle enough - fancy that roid - to separate the viable in Freud from the nonviable. Frederick Crews doesn't even try to do that because he is so down on Freud. I think that he goes too far but he does make many valuable points in his Follies of the Wise. A lot of Freud was simply not scientific. Now I am sure that you fancy yourself as smart as Mr. Crews or maybe smarter but believe me, you sure the hell aren't. So when you once again attempt to make fun of me in your leaden, pathetic fashion, when it comes to Freud, you are taking on the likes of Crews and even Philip Rieff and many others who have been my mentors. I am not the digital equivalent of a loudmouth like you consisting of opinions only. I study things in great detail.

I don't have to make fun of you, liberal.  You are self-executing in that respect:

"Surely Freud's development of the concepts of projection and sublimation are very useful.  I utilize the former notion frequently myself, as it is a ubiquitous phenomenon."

I know that Freud would have been gratified to learn that you, liberal reformer, "utilize the former notion frequently yourself."  What greater affirmation of his work and thought could there be than that?

You and jackson and sleepy just have a good time together.  You are in with exactly the right crowd.  We'll see if your behavior improves and you can get out of your little backwater.  If not, there are now any number of posters who are hip to you and willing to stick a fork in you to let the gas out of the bag as and when necessary.

Meanwhile, keep up the reading.  Maybe this year you can achieve a new personal best in between the crispy prose, etc., etc.

esmense,

Women do not have a monopoly on the legacy of disappointment, though their share is surely larger than that of the opposite sex. I'm sympathetic to your complaint, but I just don't see how Hillary would have done more than Obama to advance the "vital economic and political interests" of women. Her victory would have been symbolically powerful, no doubt.

But tell me this: which of HRC's policies--whether they benefit women in particular or the country in general--would you like to see a Democratic congress led by a Democratic president enact?

yzon, I don't see your post as an attack. I do not trust Obama's judgment, which is precisely what he offers. Someone''s twenty years mentor is not "a microscopic point of his life". His mentor is a truly demented racist named Jeremiah Wright. Obama has SELECTED these people: Wright, Bill Ayers, Samantha Powers, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Sure, he won the Democratic primaries. But that doesn't make his judgment any better.

"You and jackson and sleepy just have a good time together"

roidubouloi, you should refrain to address me. You have wished me TO DIE in December 2007. This is far beyond the pale. Comment on whoever you want - not me.

And the problem with Samantha Powers, Pulitzer Prize-winning author on the history of genocide and the struggle to get it on the books as an actual crime, is what, exactly?

roidubouloi, just so that it be clear to you. Since you have wished me TO DIE and all I ask you is to stop writing to and about me. I wish no communication of any kind with you.

Otherwise, I know who you are in real life - so if you do not cease, I will am determined to lodge a complaint not just with TNR editors, but also with the police. In case you haven't heard, wishing people

to die on the internet has started to be taken seriously by US justice. I will also write to the people on the boards of the institutions you are on. I even know one such board member...

Sincerely

Interesting, sleepy, how you appear not to want to answer my question:  once again, the problem with Samantha Powers, Pulitzer Prize-winning author on the history of genocide and the struggle to get it on the books as an actual crime, is what, exactly?

Roid: Ah, threatening people in the past, huh? Why am I not surprised?

ironyroad, I actually answered you at length about Samantha Power in the past but you must have missed it. No problem. I'll say it again.

She was asked specifically that, would she become a presidential advisor, what would she advise a US president to do in the Middle East, specifically between Israel and the Palestinians. (Not that she's an expert, but hey, to a media man, once someone's on TV she or he is an expert in everything.) Well, our Samantha answered that she would advise the president to impose a military solution. That included putting American troops on the ground in Israel, regardless of whether Israel wants it or not. Not Palestinian territories. Israel.

I can tell you that the Israeli independence war wasn't fought so that Israel be occupied. Israel had several existential wars. Israelis love the US, and the US has no more faithful ally. But the US, while generously helping Israel, has not put its soldiers in line for Israel and has not fought its wars. Israel fought them, alone.

By contrast, the US lost 500,000 soldiers on the battlefields of Europe in WWII, rebuilt Western Europe after WWII and gave them a nuclear umbrella so that they be protected from Communism - and the gratitude for that is the perpetual spit that Europeans put on the face of Americans, plus the endless contempt: "Americans are fat stupid, uncouth, racist, etc." Got a good deal there with good ol' Europe, eh?  

Bottom line, Powers' suggestion is outrageous. It also does not play well with American Jewish voters.

Second, Samantha has also said there were Israeli war crimes in Jenin. There were none. In reality, there were 23 dead Israeli soldiers and 53 Palestinians, of which 47 were armed combatants. Samantha Power lied and never retracted that. In her human rights circles, it's cheap and popular to slander Jews.

Just like Gore 2000, Hillary cannot accept that she lost fairly.  If you don't like the way elections work in America, then you need a constitutional amendment, not whining.

sleepy writes:  "Powers' suggestion is outrageous. It also does not play well with American Jewish voters."

So I gather that you disagree with her on some issues, over which it's possible to have different opinions (yes, even the events in Jenin).  However, that doesn't make her or ZB a racist, or a demagogue, or otherwise worthy of contempt.  Part of politics is discussing different solutions and eventualities and consequences, and while I might disagree with X or Y on even major questions, that doesn't mean I can't value their contribution -- in her case, the most compelling and influential study of Lemkin and how difficult it was to get genocide onto the books as a criminal category.

It also makes little sense to lump together the names of Ayers (someone who has built up a reputation in Chicago as a scholar and teacher over 25+ years, but otherwise has had little to do with Obama), Wright (who served honorably in the Marine Corps and was a Navy medic), Power (a journalist and author of etc) and ZB (a former national security adviser and someone who understood that the Soviets had done themselves a lot of damage by going into Afghanistan).  Your irrational hatred of Obama leads you to obsess about connections that don't have any meaning.  What's your problem, for example, with Obama's friendship with Sen. Chuck Hagel?

ironyroad, minimal courtesy also says that you should address the person you are having a dialogue with, not the gallery. I find you  unexpectedly boorish.

Get your facts right. Samantha Power has argued for US occupying Israel. That's what she would advise a US president. Predictably, you have not addressed that. Maybe you say again that she received a Pulitzer Prize, sure that unrelated fact will help. her calumny against Jews and a call to occupy Israel don't derange you a bit. Eh, why should Israel-hatred disqualify anyone in your eyes?

The argument about Ayers is hilarious and mendacious. The man is a terrorist. By your logic, Hamas and Hezbollah are good to, after all they provide social services, run schools and so on. You don't like that Obama launched his 1995 campaign from the house of Ayers? So you sweep it under the rug. Congratulations!

And so it goes - Wright was a medic etc. So what? Louis Farrakhan is a very talented violinist. Since when does that excuse hatred, bigotry and violence?

Zbigniew was a good guy for you, eh? Not a word about his alignment with anti-Semites. A good guy! I still remember Carter kissing Ceausescu in the White House. The creep, well-advised by Zbig, hasn't yet met a dictator he didn't like. Well, who knows, given how much you like Zbig and Samnatha or any other anti-Semite or terrorist that gets mentioned, you may be happily ensconced in reading Walt and Mearsheimer, or Carter's Israel-apartheid book.

You're a master of the non-sequitur. Who said anything about Chuck Hagel? Not me. Moreover, Wright is not the equivalent of Hagel, he's the equivalent of Pat Buchanan. Farrakhan, wright's honoree, is not equivalent of Hagel, he's the equivalent of David Duke of the KKK - same enterprising lust for murder in the organizations each leads.

You have become a character from a play by Ionesco "Les rhinoceros". It always starts with a fever attack...

Hi liberal,

You may not be coming back this way, but, yeah.  I once threatened to have myself beamed to sleepy's place and smash his cable-modem.

He, like you, is someone who likes to heap a lot of abuse on other people but gets very upset when the response is in kind.

Sleepy, I actually have no idea why or when you think that I wished you dead.  I don't wish you dead.  I wish you to have a nice life, win the Nobel Prize for your research, and learn to play nicely on the internet.