The reason we are wrapped up in the primary is because that's were we want to be. This primary has shown how far we need to go and how far we've come. Hopefully at the end of the primary everyone will stop hating each other

Odd that the comments on this particular thread are coming in so slowly.

Two months ago: Day #1: "It's an honor to share the same stage with Senator Obama".

Day#2: "Shame on you Barack Obama! Shame on you"!!

For Clinton to have invoked RFK's assassination in any context was stupid and insensitive. For her to then turn around, and ONCE AGAIN play the "outraged victim" card, is pathetic.

Or am I being sexist?

If Hillary is using the examples of folks being in the race until June to justify staying in the race, then why did she mention the assassination? Why didn't she just say that over the years Democratic primaries have not wrapped up until June?

It must be perfectly OK for HRC to relentlessly invoke Rev. Wright when politically advantageous but when called on statements like she made about RFK the excuse is "you took it out of context." Oh sure.

Spare us your situational ethical standards and selfish entitlement mentality and drop out---NOW.

Look, this wasn't a slip up, it was calculated. This was the FOURTH time she had chosen to invoke Kennedy's June death which just shows how desperate, and IMO, pathetic she has become! GUTTER POLITICS against her own party!

There's no way her comments can be spun or justified, ESPECIALLY since it's about the 4th time she's made similar comments and in the same context, which btw is misleading at best. Her facts are inaccurate.
That along with McCauliffe saying with that chit eating grin that "anything can happen" is very cringe worthy. She and her camp should not get a pass here.

And once again I'd like to say how disappointed I was with C&L not posting Keith's Special Comments about this. (Yes, I know it was available everywhere, but that's not the point.)

[That is exactly the point ez. It was everywhere. Site Monitor]

"TPM Cafe suggests that we’re all—myself included, too caught up in the primary process and missing some other important issues. What do you think?"

I think you missed the boat on this one, John. i think you ticked off a lot of your readers and i would not be surprised if some don't come back. Mass deletions and censorship are not what we are accustomed to on C&L and we don't deserve it. This is old news now. Two days too late to matter anymore.

No Keith Olbermann Special Comment was a first for this site. I am not exactly sure what you are afraid of, but if it is us i suggest that you should fear losing us because, actually, i think you just did. You lost our trust.
[ You know Xoites, We can't win for losing , First we're accused of being all Obama all the time, Then we're accused of being against Clinton all the time.
Which one is it? So are you saying that we're pro Clinton now? As you know we don't endorse any one candidate. get over it.]

xoites defends Constitution @ 15:

"TPM Cafe suggests that we’re all—myself included, too caught up in the primary process and missing some other important issues. What do you think?"

I think you missed the boat on this one, John. i think you ticked off a lot of your readers and i would not be surprised if some don't come back. Mass deletions and censorship are not what we are accustomed to on C&L and we don't deserve it. This is old news now. Two days too late to matter anymore.

No Keith Olbermann Special Comment was a first for this site. I am not exactly sure what you are afraid of, but if it is us i suggest that you should fear losing us because, actually, i think you just did. You lost our trust.
[ You know Xoites, We can't win for losing , First we're accused of being all Obama all the time, Then we're accused of being against Clinton all the time.
Which one is it? So are you saying that we're pro Clinton now? As you know we don't endorse any one candidate. get over it.]

That is not what i am saying and i think you know it. There was a serious issue that EVERYONE wanted to talk about and you stiffled it. Straight out did not want any discussion and we all know it. Noone was allowed to defend Hillary or take her to task. I have never accussed this site of being pro nor anti either candidate. So this statement, "So are you saying that we're pro Clinton now?" is disingenuos at best.

[Here. Site Monitor]

I've got to agree with Mr. Amato on this one. I heard Clinton's comments but I felt that they were taken out of context and was meant in more of a historical manner than a literal one.  It was a very stupid comment to say the least but I doubt that she meant it in that way. No politican that I have ever heard of would make an open, public statement about assasinating a political rival and not expect to feel the heat from it.  If a politican really wanted to assassinate a rival they would say nothing at all, order the hit, and would react publically with a false shock when the assassination was carried out.  This is why each candidate has Secret Service agents assigned to them after a period of time. 

xoites defends Constitution @ 18:

I reserve the right to read other blogs and delete C&L from my "favorites."

I am embarrassed for you. You were a much better than this at one time.

C'mon Xoites, perhaps C&L has just taken the Reid, Pelosi and Dean approach to this issue. Where are they? Playing ostrich? There seems to be a lot of that going around.

[Here. Site Monitor.]

Lets get something straight. This woman sees no problem in reminding us that we should all question our rationale in wanting to vote for a black candidate because, through her way of thinking, it is a big mistake, because, he will probably get bumped off. This woman is despicable and I believe certifiable. This woman doesn`t realize that if Mr. Obama is whacked the first people that I and many others will suspect as the masterminds in such a conspiracy will be the Clintons. Hillary should stick to fairy tales like sniper fire in Bosnia.

She made a reference to RFK's assassination because the journalists in that room would remember it occurred in June while the primaries were ongoing. It was a closed meeting, not a public speech, being recorded by what appears to have been someone's cellphone camera. This is hardly the way you plant a thought into the minds of the masses. Moreover, she had already finished her response to the questioner but he wasn't satisfied with her more brief answer and pressed her for more. That is when she reminded him of the RFK assassination timeline.

No one on that editorial board in that room had a creepy feeling about her response or thought she was drawing attention to the assaissination rather than the June timeline because, unlike us, they were in the room and had experienced every aspect of the perfectly innocuous and innocent context of her response.

There was absolutely nothing controversial about it. Keith Olbermann has gone insane with the glorious prospect of stealing away some of Faux News' audience ratings as long as he continues bashing the Clintons mercilessly. His behavior in that regard is truly embarrassing.

xoites defends Constitution @ 18:

I reserve the right to read other blogs and delete C&L from my "favorites."

I am embarrassed for you. You were a much better than this at one time.

Hi Xoites and ditto.
[Here. Site Monitor]

Also, please don't tell me that Presidential candidates couldn't possibly be aware that comments are being recorded even in the setting of a newspaper's offices. Everything is recorded everywhere all the time, somehow. I haven't seen an article which says that "no one in that meeting thought the comment was creepy" -- have all of those present been interviewed?

I think that Hillary is over-managed and over-counseled, to the point where someone gave her the line about the assassination of Robert Kennedy in March and there were never outcries the other times that she used it. (Why no one from the media, the blogosphere or a party elder said nothing when she brought up the assassination earlier perhaps shows their deference to her as a candidate, then. Or maybe it was because there was so much activity in both parties' primaries that her words were not scrutinized as closely as they should have.) She felt that it was acceptable then and, therefore, she could use it now in May because it would not harm her and bolster her case for staying in the race past May.

However, with the primary campaign dragging along with no real news, as the conflict and tensions between the two campaigns has died down, places any misstep or use of inappropriate language in a magnifying glass. Add to it the speed that news (and video) travels by way of the internet (and the viral nature of videos that are e-mailed or shared), creates an avalanche that a traditional candidate cannot escape.

So I think that Hillary is a victim of her own handlers' bad advice (which a sensible friend out of the campaign bubble should have corrected in March, but did not) and the new context of political campaigns.

Personally, I found the statement to be a game changer and harms her ability to negotiate for the vice presidency.

xoites defends Constitution @ 15:

"TPM Cafe suggests that we’re all—myself included, too caught up in the primary process and missing some other important issues. What do you think?"

I think you missed the boat on this one, John. i think you ticked off a lot of your readers and i would not be surprised if some don't come back. Mass deletions and censorship are not what we are accustomed to on C&L and we don't deserve it. This is old news now. Two days too late to matter anymore.

No Keith Olbermann Special Comment was a first for this site. I am not exactly sure what you are afraid of, but if it is us i suggest that you should fear losing us because, actually, i think you just did. You lost our trust.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Xoites, because yours has been a valuable voice on our comments.

What it came down to is that John and the team felt that the Special Comment did nothing more than feed into the divisiveness within the party and ultimately will hurt the Democrats. It wasn't an easy choice to make, but I think that John made the right one.

You may not agree, and it's your right to do so. However you choose to interpret Clinton's words, she does have millions and millions of supporters who did not perceive it that way and whose votes we desperately need to keep the White House. We have had a standing policy for many, many months that we were not going to get into the primary fight, but let the process work itself out and support whomever the nominee turned out to be. That editorial choice is consistent with our decision not to run the Special Comment. Let me quote Paul Krugman:

Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent.

Indeed, John McCain has shed whatever maverick tendencies he may once have had, and become almost a caricature conservative — an advocate of lower taxes for the rich and corporations, a privatizer and shredder of the safety net.

But elections always involve emotions as well as issues, and there are some ominous signs in the polling data.

In Florida, in particular, the rolling estimate produced by the professionals at Pollster.com shows Mr. McCain running substantially ahead of Mr. Obama, even as he runs significantly behind Mrs. Clinton. Ohio also looks problematic, and Pennsylvania looks closer than it should. It’s true that head-to-head polls five months before the general election have a poor track record. But they certainly give reason to worry.

The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year.

So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?

Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.

Again, you may think that Hillary's comments--as in bad taste as they unquestionably were--is the most paramount thing for us discuss. But we're looking at the bigger picture and we can't agree. Is it worth winning that battle and losing the war?

Joe O. @ 19:

I've got to agree with Mr. Amato on this one. I heard Clinton's comments but I felt that they were taken out of context and was meant in more of a historical manner than a literal one.  It was a very stupid comment to say the least but I doubt that she meant it in that way.  

In one sense it doesn't matter what she meant or at least that she didn't mean what reasonable people could infer from her statement -- namely that she could still win if someone would assassinate Obama. What matters is that reasonable people could immediately make that connection. This is a candidate with a mountain of baggage and more than a few steamer trunks of that baggage are filled with suspicions that HRC would do almost anything to get the nomination. I say almost, because the list of what people believe she wouldn't do will vary from person to person. Few would argue that she would be willing to kill Obama herself or have him killed, but I'm sure there are a lot more people who think little enough of Clinton to accept that she would welcome his elimination from the contest no matter what form it took.

Several other duffel bags are filled with her victimhood and her ability to apply double standards to herself, i.e., solicit votes from women because she is a woman, and complain about how she is treated unfairly...as a woman.

Should something happen to Obama, I'm fairly certain Clinton already has her fantasy nomination plan worked out. First, she steps in to assume the nomination and leadership of the party, while leading the nation's mourning over the loss of Obama (her rhetoric would soar and sound nothing like the petty, whining she has resorted to so often in the campaign). Then, after trouncing McCain in the fall, partly on the strength of the sympathy vote, she would at long last take her rightful place in the White House.

The problem with Clinton is she can't be separated from her baggage, much of which she has earned through reprehensible behavior. When she says something like "as far as I know" (referring to whether or not Obama is a Muslim), or talks about "hard-working...white people," or points out that Bobby Kennedy lost the nomination by being assassinated it is natural for Clinton doubters to interpret her words in as negative a way as possible. That's one reason why she should not be the nominee and should never be president -- we will never escape Clinton's past, and the country will suffer every time we have to deal with it.

LunaStick @ 36:

Nicole Belle @33,

This comment of yours made into a post would have been perfect! Just something to explain how you all felt about this would have been all anyone could have asked for. As it was, your silence on the issue left a lot of people confused and I'm sure some of your more loyal and long time readers were even upset by that. What you just said, if made into a post, could have been helpful towards bringing unity. As it was, the silence just let the divisions simmer to boiling. Those on both sides of the Obama/Clinton race respect your opinions and many were looking for them in hopes of bringing some clarity to the issue.

Not my site, Luna. The post had to come from John. I just wanted to add my two cents, now that he's done his post.

I'm not defending her comments. They were just plain stupid. But I don't believe that she was advocating violence, hoping for violence or in any way suggesting that there may be violence done against Obama. She used a really, really bad invocation to say that primary races have gone into June before. Incredibly bad taste, to be sure, but not as malevolent as people seem to claim.

The thing that frustrates me so much is that while the blogosphere and the news shows have been riled up over the interpretation that initially came from Drudge, we've ignored 60,000 deaths in China; $4.00/gallon gas; McCain's Friday night dump of his medical records and SOME (but not all) of his wife's tax records, Lebanese elections, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Myanmar, etc., etc. It's really hard for me to look at all of these other stories and think that Clinton saying something she's said before without anyone batting an eye is suddenly THE issue.

To be honest, I believe each blog has their own way of covering an event.

With that being said, I felt that it should have been covered because of the pathos behind such an event. I think it was newsworthy because it did strike a chord in a lot of readers not only here, but across the Internet.

From what I've read (and despite the attempts to water down the impact of what she said), people were pretty upset by her words. I also agree that I am tired of excuses from Sen. Clinton. I have witnessed too many times her subtle meanness, her callousness and her mocking of Sen. Obama's behavior. She comes across as brittle and hard--especially when she sits in judgment of someone else. I wouldn't like a President--in her MO--to speak as if she (or he) is finger-wagging the public (and especially in a dry, monotone voice).

I realize that there are folks out there who "won't see it". I also realize that there are "apologists" for Mrs. Clinton because they support her. As a woman, I think it is great that a woman is running. But, I believe that this isn't the right woman. As many others have said, there are woman out there who are more deserving and humble than she is. They have double the service, twice the candor and more of a personality.

As a result, I think the platitudes about Sen. Clinton "not really meaning what she said", come too little, too late.

There is one unique thing this entire Primary process has laid bare in front of the American public: that is the fact that white people get to uniquely see the impact of racism on a person of color, whether they are rich or poor. And hopefully, there are some folks out there that will realize that what happening to Mr. Obama is not an unique event. The bias, the anger, the violence and the slurs against him occur on a daily basis for a lot of minority folk. Some of it is blatant, for sure. But in the guise of Hillary Clinton's behavior and in the actions of others like her, it is insiduous and subtle.

And because of that, I think that Hillary's behavior provides a unique perspective regarding her attitudes and linguistic affronts. She is not entirely innocent. For one thing, she is cold, calculating and intelligent. Weariness does not make someone who so badly wants the nomination to slip up--especially with someone who has naked ambition. So, do I believe that the RFK comment was a mistake? No.

She knew better. And she threw it out there in such a way to justify her case. What she didn't expect was that people would be upset so much that they flooded many sites on-line to voice their disgust.

We did speak about it in the Open Thread, yes. But, it would have been helpful to at least address Mr. Olbermann's remarks. From a lot of circles, he spoke what a lot of people were feeling.

However, this is not going to make me stop reading C & L. I love this blog and its style. And when I read certain blogs, I pour over them because they have content that is not only informational, but delivered with a sort of guts that the MSM doesn't have.

So, I wish all sides the best. And I appreciate that we have a venue for spirited and thoughtful discussion. There are so few places where it is offered on-line.

Thank you for hearing me out. :)

Joe O.: I will continue to visit this site (20-30 refreshes a day). It has been pretty clearly staying out of the Obama vs. Clinton thing, and many of us are wondering why, when Clinton has put so many feet in her mouth, it is hard to see her head anymore. Fortunately, this site is so much more than that, I wouldn't even consider not visiting it. There is great information here, and even after I started to feel the bias, I still rec'd and linked you elsewhere, because at least you weren't trashing Obama. I felt compelled to comment this time, because it was just a bit too much to see the apologia, and to see you seemingly defend the indefensible. You folks do great work, and have been above the fray on much of the race. I only wish your candidate had followed your lead...

I'm a life long democrat, Obama has been my candidate for president since before he even announced.

Now that thats out of the way, lets take a look at what I think about the latest top story from the 2008 campaign. Hillary joined Huckabee in ruining their political career with alluding to assassination to further their political goals. Huckabee did it while pandering to the NRA. Hillary did it to give reason to why she is staying in the race, because Obama is in the lead now, but we all remember from Bobby Kennedy's assassination, the candidate nominated is still up for grabs.

I am not quoting Hillary, but thats what I got from the statement, just like i didn't quote Huckabee, but that is exactly what i got from the both of their speeches. They were alluding to assassination to further their political goals. As for democrats that still support Hillary after this, who do they want as Hillary's vice president? Liz Trotta???

LunaStick @ 42:

All I'm trying to say is that a post from someone saying exactly what you are saying in relation to this and the other stories you mentioned would probably have helped prevent some of the people I've seen get so upset over the silence here. Not saying anyone should have taken sides or even commented on whether or not the comment by Clinton was as some have taken it. A post saying that there are more important issues (like the ones you mentioned) coming from any one of you who write posts could have helped people keep their eye on the more important issues. What you have been saying in your two comments would have been perfect. It wouldn't have settled anyone down elsewhere on the web, but it might have helped some here who consider this site as their news "home".
Just my 2 cents.

I hear you, but that wasn't my call to make. It's John's name on the masthead and it was his decision.

j0e @ 41:

I only wish your candidate had followed your lead...

So did you read my post above and come to the conclusion that HRC was "our candidate"?

It only shows that no matter what we do, you'll read what you want into anything.

My apologies, Joe O., but this has been my impression of the site since Super Tuesday in this regard. I'm sorry if you're taking the heat for it, but your responses haven't been completely contrite, and I can understand that. At least you don't delete posts like HuffPo... I realize your position, and I am not trying to put you in an impossible position. But many of us are ready for you to take a different approach. Sites like this one carry a lot of influence, I think, and it is time to get her on out of the race so we can win the max down-ticket. I am sorry if it feels like we're beating up on you. I hope you got some kudos from my post, as well...

j0e @ 47:

My apologies, Joe O., but this has been my impression of the site since Super Tuesday in this regard. I'm sorry if you're taking the heat for it, but your responses haven't been completely contrite, and I can understand that. At least you don't delete posts like HuffPo... I realize your position, and I am not trying to put you in an impossible position. But many of us are ready for you to take a different approach. Sites like this one carry a lot of influence, I think, and it is time to get her on out of the race so we can win the max down-ticket. I am sorry if it feels like we're beating up on you. I hope you got some kudos from my post, as well...

I'm not sure who you are addressing. I'm Nicole, not Joe O. Whatever your "impression" has been, we have stated innumerable times that we will support whoever the Democratic nominee is and our primary concern is making sure that there is a Democrat in the White House come next January. Why you can't take that at face value and why you expect contrition for that stance is really beyond my ken.

The approach was chosen by the site owner, John Amato. He believes in letting democracy work. Beating up on fellow Democrats helps only John McCain, because this race has been so close and there are many HRC supporters who we need to bring back into the fold to ensure a united Democratic party so I can't see how your approach will allow us to "win the max down ticket". It may feel good and righteous to you to beat up on HRC, but our eyes are on the prize: the White House. Let's not alienate any Democratic voters. We need to focus on destroying John McCain's chances, not ours.

I LOVE Hillary!!!!!!!!!!

Joanie @ 51:

I LOVE Hillary!!!!!!!!!!

I loved Joan Collins as Alexis on Dynasty.

When someone throws a stone into the water, typically long after the rock has sunk to the bottom of the pond, the ripples still make their way across the surface for quite a while.

This was a statement intended to create a lasting impression in people's minds, one that after the initial shock and apology wears off, the ripples of fear and division linger.

Thus we have to stay strong in our convictions and look beyond the pond and its daily ripples, because our only hope is stay positive and to believe what is possible.

I am trying very hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. I think she likes referencing it because she wants to associate or compare her candidacy with RFK. I think she's saying now would people have wanted RFK to drop out? She uses her husband's candidacy too for the same reason.

I refuse to let any media - blogs included - give me my view on a topic. I would like facts presented such that I can check them out myself. I wish more people would do that as well. I acknowledge that others can come to different conclusions based on the same information - some of that is based on interior biases we all have. Those that dislike HRC will conclude her comment about RFK means the worst and those that like her will come to the opposite conclusion. There is nothing wrong with that except in the tone and language used on both sides. I read the entire comments she made that included the RFK reference and came to the conclusion - before reading any comments here or elsewhere - that she was pointing out that primaries can go late, as late as June. That is a debatble point since based on the math she is pretty much done now in the race. I think it is a waste of time - now - to let these gotcha moments blow up like they do. All it does is it helps the GOP, McCain, Faux, and the punditry. It does nothing to focus on the real issues effecting real americans.

As for C&L, I appreciate that it is focusing on the prize in November since the nomination process is winding down and articles like this including the comments give me a headache.

Welcome to the game of politics, friends one minute, enemies the next then friends once again. I admit I am a Hilary supporter but will back any democratic nominee when the time comes. So my wish is that instead of contributing to this meaningless story (which shouldn't have been a story to begin with)...let's focus on the main goal and that's to keep the focus and help our nominee win in November and not engage in this useless diatribe. If anyone really thought for a moment, did you think that maybe what RFK JR said in his statement after what Hilary said should be honored? After all he is the son of RFK. Did anyone of you think of him and his wishes regarding this story? He wishes it to go away because it's not a story.
As the old saying goes...If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

I am constantly impressed by the ability of people, many of whom are demonstrably intelligent, to act against their own self interest. The idea that hurling constant abuse at a democratic candidate and referring to her supporters as ignorant racist morons will somehow persuade those people that their best interests rest with voting for the presumed democratic nominee Obama. I watch as McCain moves away from the extreme right back towards the center moderate positions he once held with the clear intention of going after those disaffected by what I have to agree was grotesque abuse of their candidate. I thought that this might moderate as the primaries came to an end but this is clearly not the case. It would be a tragedy if those demographic groups that favored Hillary and which Senator Obama has tried so valiantly to connect with are lost by those of his supporters who don't get it. If they'd model their behavior on the candidate they purport to admire (as I admire him) they would stop. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Doug, I feel you are missing the point. It doesn't matter to me what Faux News, McCain or even Obama think about Hillary's remarks. What matters to me is what crazy people with guns think about Hillary's emphasis, and not just this one instance, that people are trying to "take the election away from her" due to injustice, or sexism, or whatever reason she has this week.

Her latest remark would seem to suggest to people who are racist, or fanatical, emotionally unbalanced supporters, that they would gain her approval if only they could fix things for her. And before you think that's a stretch, think of all the crazy stalkers there are in the world who think celebrities are talking to them personally in their songs and movies, and want them to be involved in their lives.

Why say something that can be easily misinterpreted by such a person? Surely Bill had threats at one time - Hillary must have been advised on how to act and what to say not to set such people off. It would have been so easy for Hillary to immediately apologize to the Obama family publicly, saying, I would never wish them harm. Instead, she declined, leaving the impression she wouldn't mind if something did happen to them. What's worse, Wolfson actually had the nerve to say there was no reason for her to be sorry. Just what a racist, unbalanced person wants to hear.

There is nothing more heart-wrenching than seeing the entire democratic process subverted by one idiot with a gun. It only takes one. Bill O'Reilly may be obnoxious, but he's not going to physically harm anyone.

It was a talking point, pure and simple. And one designed to insinuate an upset to the undeclared. In the same way that voters, white voters was a way to discuss electabilty and Obama's racist problem. I'm stunned that you find it out of context to call her out on the repeated insinuation. This is what they do - all politicians. To suddenly not read between the lines is just odd.

It's horrifying to me to realize that the wacko right-wingers were right about one thing: Hillary will do ANYTHING to become President. I used to scoff at that criticism, but with the way she's waged her campaign, including these latest disturbing comments (Keith O. was absolutely right to criticize her), well, you'd have to be a fool to try and defend her. Let's just say the proof is in the pudding... (By the way, the use of the word "pudding" is a euphemism here).

xoites defends Constitution @ 15:

"TPM Cafe suggests that we’re all—myself included, too caught up in the primary process and missing some other important issues. What do you think?"

I think you missed the boat on this one, John. i think you ticked off a lot of your readers and i would not be surprised if some don't come back. Mass deletions and censorship are not what we are accustomed to on C&L and we don't deserve it. This is old news now. Two days too late to matter anymore.

No Keith Olbermann Special Comment was a first for this site. I am not exactly sure what you are afraid of, but if it is us i suggest that you should fear losing us because, actually, i think you just did. You lost our trust.
[ You know Xoites, We can't win for losing , First we're accused of being all Obama all the time, Then we're accused of being against Clinton all the time.
Which one is it? So are you saying that we're pro Clinton now? As you know we don't endorse any one candidate. get over it.]

Looks like xoites struck a nerve... the first time i saw this story on another website i said to my self... hmmm i wonder what C&L has to say about this.... to my surprise.. nothing... nada, zip-O Zilch about this story...
I mean i've seen other story's on this site that was every where else before so that excuse don't hold water. A Major Political news story not posted on CL...that just ain't right.

so now its time to blame the messenger?

hillary made the same comments back in march...no one said boo

she has repeated these comments on two other occasions, leaving out the word assasination, yet repeating the lie that bill needed to california to clinch the nom...no one said boo

so now people get upset and its our fault that we are demonizing hillary?

this wasnt a slip of the tongue...it was a calculated move to anger the masses so that she again could say "poor little me"

while she is partially right that it is unprecidented that a candidate be asked to drop out before all the votes are tallied, it is her campaign which has driven people to do this

at the start, i wanted her to stay in...all the way to the convention, if neccessary, because a race brings more voters to the polls and energizes the electorate

but the tone of her campaign has become such that for her to continue hurts the party, obama and ultimately her own political career

right now i wish hillary would just go far, far away

Hillary s RFK-comments are offensive. There's no reason whatsoever to bring up the assassination to make her point. Of course she didnt mean "Who knows anything could happen", it was just a stupid thoughtless comment. But the big problem IMO is not apologizing to Obama

"Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization
of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain."

Are you kidding me here? Obama is demonizing Clinton?
Try turning those tables around, for crissakes!

Obama has taken every potshot, snide remark, wink-wink snipe,
veiled race baiting, and yeah, Team Hillary's Kitchen Sink AND assassination
remark with a remarkable level of manners and polite responses.

If Obama wanted to demonize Hillary, he would be bringing up
Monica Lewinsky ad nauseum, he would be reminding people of
Bill Clinton's wagging finger, and plenty of other factual dirt
clinging to the Clintons' "vetted" skeletons in their closet.

But he refuses to lower himself to that level - to THEIR level.

Whether Hillary meant ANYTHING else while using the RFK tragedy
as simply an example of a June campaign, the fact that her brain
isn't smart enough to not use the "A" word is the story here.
That, and still offering no apology to Obama whatsoever.

I f'king hate Hillary Clinton right now. And that is a complete 180
from how I've felt about both Clintons just a year ago.

Mz. Piggy I am with you 100% on your assessment. How Obama could run a more conscientious campaign and still win a nomination is beyond me. I remember a couple of months ago that people were saying he wasn't hard enough. And let's flip the situation 180 degrees. If Obama would have said that assassination would finish the primary race for the Dem's the shitstorm from the Clintonistas would have been unreal. I have a supported the Clintons in the first administration and have Bill's picture at the end of his administration with a general thank you for my support still hanging in my den. But right now the Clintons are persona non grata.

bmw H. 528 @ 12:

Pamela Troy @ 6:

Uh, no, Long Tooth, you're not being exist (she said in a deeply resigned tone.) Why are you asking?

You DO understand the cases where people HAVE made sexist comments about Clinton, right?

You DO understand that the complaint has been valid in many cases?

Right?

People like Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Eleanor Roosevelt, and many other women had to endure blatant sexism and unfair criticism but didn't use it as an excuse or retreat into victimhood. They overcame it with the quality of their vision, leadership and character, something that HRC could do a whole lot better.

Yesterday she was a bitch...today she's a victim. Which is it? People spin to fit whatever they already believe. If HRC were a victim, she most certainly would not be where she is today, that's for sure.

For the record, what she has had to put up with is a helluva lot more scrutiny and criticism than those women you cite and others. For her to point out the imbalances does not make her a victim.

blatz @ 61:

Welcome to the game of politics, friends one minute, enemies the next then friends once again. I admit I am a Hilary supporter but will back any democratic nominee when the time comes. So my wish is that instead of contributing to this meaningless story (which shouldn't have been a story to begin with)...let's focus on the main goal and that's to keep the focus and help our nominee win in November and not engage in this useless diatribe. If anyone really thought for a moment, did you think that maybe what RFK JR said in his statement after what Hilary said should be honored? After all he is the son of RFK. Did anyone of you think of him and his wishes regarding this story? He wishes it to go away because it's not a story.
As the old saying goes...If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

I havent heard anything of this, but why dont the two camps of staffers and candidates HRC and Obama go have a BBQ together between doing each caucus event. Show a united front between rounds...

50% plus of the Dems prefer Obama and 40% plus of the Dems prefer HRC to be the next POTUS,
but both camps want the next administration to be a Democratic one.
Its prob too late to do this now, but something that should have been done in the past and maybe a good thing for the future.

Why did you make a post about the "guns and religion" then and not this if you didn't want to "feed divisiveness?"

Sen. Clinton's very unfortunate remark was in remarkably bad taste. I can really fathom she's hinting someone should or would kill Sen. Obama. But she has repeatedly played the race card and fallen back on Republican party playbook tactics. I would agree with Paul Krugman, normally a voice of sanity in the MSM, she has received some very sexist treatment, particularly at the hands of the media. But how that justifies not voting for Obama, I don't know. Sorta the same logic where Saudi citizens attacked us so we invade Iraq. No, we will come together as a party and this is just as much Clinton's responsibility as anyone's.

Considering the Clintons have a very questionable past about a lot of unexplained death how can you not consider that Hillary's slip was not freudian in nature?!! John Amato!!

I am absolutely no hillary supporter, especially in my opinion, after the way she has shown that she has been able to change her views and say almost anything to appease and appeal to a portion of what she feels is her supporting constituency. however, by focusing on her remark regarding bobby kennedy and his assassination, i feel the dems are once again playing into republican devices. They want the fighting to continue and the more ruthless the dems appear the better for their candidate, mcsame. They don't have a candidate nor do they have a viable platform so consequently their only recourse is to throw mud or, more precisely, to have the dem candidates slime one another.

I watched as hillary gave the remark, and there's much to do about nothing. she was merely giving a reason, although quite possibly in retrospect, a poor example of why she has elected to stay in the race until the end. There should be no apology where no ill intent was generated.

Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November…

sorry. if her "character" didnt suck, we wouldnt call her on it. dont like the heat, split kitchen.

My take on C&L not commenting on this story is much the same as the networks avoiding mentioning the Pentagon briefing the military analysts for the networks.
Their silence was damning and their collusion is apparent.

Having said that I still open C&L web page first thing in the morning and will continue to do so since Greenwalds comments are usually posted later in the morning.

You may not agree, and it’s your right to do so. However you choose to interpret Clinton’s words, she does have millions and millions of supporters who did not perceive it that way and whose votes we desperately need to keep the White House. We have had a standing policy for many, many months that we were not going to get into the primary fight, but let the process work itself out and support whomever the nominee turned out to be. That editorial choice is consistent with our decision not to run the Special Comment. - Nicolle Belle

I feel awkward being in any way critical of someone else in their own house, so I will tread lightly. I do agree with some that the silence was deafening and felt sort of weird. C&L has always stated that they are neutral on which candidate gets the nomination, and I've never questioned that.

Here's the mistake I think C&L and Paul Krugman is making - you are allowing yourselves to be held hostage by Clinton's train wrecked campaign. The avalanche of criticisms that Hillary has received from the left has come not because we feel we have a viable alternative in Obama but because of the way she has sought the nomination.

Both her and Obama's camps have made the statement that they don't think some of their supporters will support the other candidate in a general election. She was divisive and Obama was right. Obama was speaking of the independents and Republicans he has won over who made it clear up front that they wouldn't vote for Hillary. Her case on the other hand was vote for me or I will take my ball and bat and go home, very different from her pledge to support whoever the nominee is, so that we can fear losing the White House and reconsider voting for her. Although I agree that we cannot retake the White House without Clinton supporters, we cannot be scared into "support our candidate or else" fear tactics of her most loyal supporters.

Yes Obama has this thing just about wrapped up, but is it not Hillary rather than those who criticizes her that is helping John McCain? That's another mistake that the right makes that we can steer clear from. They don't reprimand one of their own the way we do, but make excuses for them instead or blame an unfair and biased media. I respect the KO Special Comments, and I have no doubt that if Obama had stepped out there wrong he would have gotten some too.

Lastly, it would have been in keeping with C&L standard of quality posting to post the special comment along with a note that in your opinion you think Keith's pile on was over the top and divisive. But to now learn that John ommitted it on purpose to promote party unity seems Stalinist and condescending like you're treating your faithful readers like children who cannot sort this thing out like adults.

bobswire @ 95:

My take on C&L not commenting on this story is much the same as the networks avoiding mentioning the Pentagon briefing the military analysts for the networks.
Their silence was damning and their collusion is apparent.

Amen to that. C&L's blackout of this story up until this posting was disgusting bias.

"Taken out of context"

This is driving me nuts. I understand that it has become a stock political phrase as a first defense, but it does not fit here. For her statement to have been taken out of context, it would mean that there was a larger or broader discussion going on from which the comment is pulled and that larger discussion warrants the use of the comment and dilutes the power of it. That was not the case here, she was answering a direct question and in most cases the complete answer is either transcribed or shown in the video.

Now this is not to say that the intended meaning of her answer was not correctly reported (as the comment was misconstrued or misinterpreted), but the context of it is plainly shown.

Geeezz, I've been gone Work will do that to ya.
All this hullabaloo over HRC's comment and no thread from C&L.WTF?
Maybe JA saw a huge flame war coming and decided, it's not worth it.
The level of discourse between the two factions has been rapidly decending.
I have one question, Do any of you let someone else run your business?

The demonization of Clinton? She's demonzing herself with all these disgraceful remarks.

Out of context my ass, every time she opens her mouth its supposedly out of context, where its insulting MLK or having a memory lapse about Bosnia.

People need to stop being Clinton apologists and realise that they're no better than the Bush's.. they're just able to hide their dirty deeds better.

Before I go to work today, I would like to say this.
John Amato has put up with alot of bullshit from alot of people. We have all crossed the line more than a few times. Myself
included. He doesn't post one thread, and you all turn on him. What does that say about you?
That guy has been more patient with us than anybody else. Go to a repug site a see what happens.
Yet alot of people want to bash the site, threatening to leave. WTF!
Of course that's your option and decision to make. You and you alone can make that decision.
Sometimes I think we all act like spoiled children, spoiled rotten children.
What's the matter? Can't have it your way? I for one am sick and tired of all this Dem on Dem bashing.
And you think we stand a chance to win the WH? Yes, We will clutch defeat out of the mouth of victory.
And we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
So next time you start bashing a Dem who doesn't see eye to eye with you. I just want to say thank you, for fucking up my future.

Flitt @ 81:

bmw H. 528 @ 12:

Pamela Troy @ 6:

Uh, no, Long Tooth, you're not being exist (she said in a deeply resigned tone.) Why are you asking?

You DO understand the cases where people HAVE made sexist comments about Clinton, right?

You DO understand that the complaint has been valid in many cases?

Right?

People like Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Eleanor Roosevelt, and many other women had to endure blatant sexism and unfair criticism but didn't use it as an excuse or retreat into victimhood. They overcame it with the quality of their vision, leadership and character, something that HRC could do a whole lot better.

Yesterday she was a bitch...today she's a victim. Which is it? People spin to fit whatever they already believe. If HRC were a victim, she most certainly would not be where she is today, that's for sure.

For the record, what she has had to put up with is a helluva lot more scrutiny and criticism than those women you cite and others. For her to point out the imbalances does not make her a victim.

Sorry, but not hardly. To say that HRC had it easier than the three women I referenced is completely wrong, it's the other way around (thanks Ferrofluid). Check our your history before you come up with such conclusions. We don't need blamers and panderers like HRC---we need other centered leaders with vision, persistence, and integrity. That's what will resonate with the public---not a vision based on an entitlement mentality.

Neal @ 98:

bobswire @ 95:

My take on C&L not commenting on this story is much the same as the networks avoiding mentioning the Pentagon briefing the military analysts for the networks.
Their silence was damning and their collusion is apparent.

Amen to that. C&L's blackout of this story up until this posting was disgusting bias.

Disgusting bias? No. I think what all the readers are missing -- and John and Nicole haven't said, directly, that I know of -- is that C&L is one of those lefty blogs that has all along been desperately trying to shield itself from the hysterical shitstorm of Obama AND Clinton loyalists. It is absolutely stunning that in a race between two pols who've had virtually the same voting record since BHO joined the Senate, most people are convinced their candidate walks on water while the other is a soulless, steaming pile of evil.

I don't see how these two can end up on the same ticket, but I'm kinda hoping for it. Because if it happens, the joke will be on all of you.

BTW, the Hillary RFK comment floored me. People fear bad things could happen to any Dem candidate, but especially Obama. WAY out of bounds.

And by, BTW, C&L, this story, unlike, say, the China earthquake, was right in the wheelhouse of things you cover. You HAD to say something about it, right away, even if it was only that you didn't think it was worth fanning the flames...

Add me to the list of readers disappointed by C&L's curious omission of coverage of Hillary's comments. I used to come here for objective stories on EVERYone because it's only too easy to find sites that only criticize Democrats or only criticize Republicans. When I watched the actual video of her comments, I immediately rushed here to see if I was the only person shocked by what Hillary said. I was puzzled by the lack of any coverage here, because usually you folks are very quick to point out the political bullshit. But no, the closest I could find was a non-story where the comments were CLOSED because people had used that thread to discuss her assassination comments. Now I was doubly appalled. Not only at Clinton's comments, but at C&L's refusal to admit they even happened.

The day you start picking and choosing which news stories to run on the basis of how it affects perception of a particular candidate is the day you officially turn into FOX News, folks. Thanks for convincing me to go elsewhere.

bobswire @ 109:

mudshark hussein @ 106:

Before I go to work today, I would like to say this.
John Amato has put up with alot of bullshit from alot of people. We have all crossed the line more than a few times. Myself
included. He doesn't post one thread, and you all turn on him. What does that say about you?
That guy has been more patient with us than anybody else. Go to a repug site a see what happens.
Yet alot of people want to bash the site, threatening to leave. WTF!
Of course that's your option and decision to make. You and you alone can make that decision.
Sometimes I think we all act like spoiled children, spoiled rotten children.
What's the matter? Can't have it your way? I for one am sick and tired of all this Dem on Dem bashing.
And you think we stand a chance to win the WH? Yes, We will clutch defeat out of the mouth of victory.
And we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
So next time you start bashing a Dem who doesn't see eye to eye with you. I just want to say thank you, for fucking up my future.

What’s the matter? Can’t have it your way? I for one am sick and tired of all this Dem on Dem bashing.
And you think we stand a chance to win the WH? Yes, We will clutch defeat out of the mouth of victory.
And we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.
So next time you start bashing a Dem who doesn’t see eye to eye with you. I just want to say thank you, for fucking up my future.

Thank Hillary.

I won't put the blame on any one person, But I will blame all the rabid supporters from both sides.
Granted HRC caused all this shit storm with her stupid comment. But it's Obama supporters who ran with it and basically. twisted it to fit their own needs. I for one don't see what everyone is so upset about. It was a gaffe, that is all.
Supporters have been bashing each other from both sides. So both sides aren't without guilt here.
I put the blame on the overzealous supporters from both sides. The rest of us have to live with the consequences of these few people. And to those people I say Thank You for fucking up my future.

It's bad enough when trained journalists and paid pundits are blowing one or two statements out of proportion in order to make headlines, but what's even worse is when ideologues, zealots and self-anointed crusaders amongst the citizenry (some of whom are mentally unstable) are doing this in the 'sphere and further undermining the civility of public discourse. Journalists and pundits have to make a living, but there's no good reason for any of us 'regular folk' who are still rational and civil to allow ourselves to be stooping to this level. It's high time for some who seem to have all the time in the world to spend on the 'net, but no time to spend with their families and real flesh-and-blood friends, to stop taking differences of opinion on public policy so intensely personal and get back to some semblance of a normal existence.

ok, I said my piece. off to work.
TRY to have a nice day, and while you're at it think about the reason this day is a holiday.

I'm calling the Politco on its bullshit. If Obama can catch hell for his "bitter" and "clinging" comments at a private meeting, then Clinton can get grilled for her "assassination" comment in a private meeting. There's no overdone coverage here at all.

OJ Simpson....that's overdone. Brittany....that's overdone. This primary may be old, but it is good for us Democrats that it is keeping McCranky out of the news.

The Clintons have set the tone of this primary. If the party is damaged (which I doubt), then they bear most of the responsibility since they have put their needs above the needs of the party and even the country.

They're like alcoholic parents driving drunk with their kids in the back seat.

There's no way to excuse or rationalize that.

John Amato, I want to thank you for the way you have handled this story. I felt at the time that it was somewhat overblown. Even one of my favorites, Keith Olberman I thought went over the top in the criticism he delivered, but I can understand his passion. Hilary's remarks were, to be diplomatic, ungraceful at the least. A possible assassination is not something to be brought up lightly or as an offhand reason to continue to run for President

As one of Hillary's constituents from New York, it was a difficult choice for me to vote for Mr. Obama in the New York primary, but I was looking at it from an electability standpoint, and knowing the deep hatred she engenders in the far right, I felt she would not be triumphant in the general election.

Sure John, she has said it 4 times now, mentioning Billy and Bobby, but she didn't mean it . . .

122 dflawsn

Is it what the Clintons said or did that set the tone of this election, or the interpretations placed upon them by oppositions either within or without the party?

Nicole Belle @ 33:

xoites defends Constitution @ 15:

"TPM Cafe suggests that we’re all—myself included, too caught up in the primary process and missing some other important issues. What do you think?"

I think you missed the boat on this one, John. i think you ticked off a lot of your readers and i would not be surprised if some don't come back. Mass deletions and censorship are not what we are accustomed to on C&L and we don't deserve it. This is old news now. Two days too late to matter anymore.

No Keith Olbermann Special Comment was a first for this site. I am not exactly sure what you are afraid of, but if it is us i suggest that you should fear losing us because, actually, i think you just did. You lost our trust.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Xoites, because yours has been a valuable voice on our comments.

What it came down to is that John and the team felt that the Special Comment did nothing more than feed into the divisiveness within the party and ultimately will hurt the Democrats. It wasn't an easy choice to make, but I think that John made the right one.

You may not agree, and it's your right to do so. However you choose to interpret Clinton's words, she does have millions and millions of supporters who did not perceive it that way and whose votes we desperately need to keep the White House. We have had a standing policy for many, many months that we were not going to get into the primary fight, but let the process work itself out and support whomever the nominee turned out to be. That editorial choice is consistent with our decision not to run the Special Comment. Let me quote Paul Krugman:

Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent.

Indeed, John McCain has shed whatever maverick tendencies he may once have had, and become almost a caricature conservative — an advocate of lower taxes for the rich and corporations, a privatizer and shredder of the safety net.

But elections always involve emotions as well as issues, and there are some ominous signs in the polling data.

In Florida, in particular, the rolling estimate produced by the professionals at Pollster.com shows Mr. McCain running substantially ahead of Mr. Obama, even as he runs significantly behind Mrs. Clinton. Ohio also looks problematic, and Pennsylvania looks closer than it should. It’s true that head-to-head polls five months before the general election have a poor track record. But they certainly give reason to worry.

The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year.

So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?

Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.

Again, you may think that Hillary's comments--as in bad taste as they unquestionably were--is the most paramount thing for us discuss. But we're looking at the bigger picture and we can't agree. Is it worth winning that battle and losing the war?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAA

y'all can't be serious, right?

c'mon tell me you're kidding

wait i must have missed a smilie character or a LOL somewhere

isn't clinton the one who was running around ohio and penn talking all kinda shit about obama "shame on you, elitist, i'm not bitter, etc"

wait don't tell me the clintons have shares in this blog?

In the opening paragraph of his post, John said:

"I don’t believe Hillary meant what the media’s initial reaction to it was"

It wasn't just "the media's" initial reaction to it. It was MY initial reaction to it. I didn't read an article telling me how to feel, I watched the video and reacted the way I reacted. Judging by the quantity of similar posts and comments on the topic on just about every blog, it was the initial reaction of many, many people.

My reaction to her comments is formed in and around my opinion of who she is, what she wants, and how she hopes to achieve it. Just as my opinion of my candidate of choice (Obama) is formed around my reaction to what he says and how he says it. I generally find him to be thoughtful, considerate and inclusive. I generally find her to be manipulative and disingenuous. I know that this says as much about me as it does about her. That's how it's supposed to work.

But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt – as soon as she finds the 'testicular fortitude' to apologize to the Obama family instead of complaining about how everybody's got her wrong and the whole thing is just so unfair.

funny . . .all that ink on Senator Clinton's horrific gaffe - but not a peep about McBush cutting loose his pastors (at least when the story broke) hmmmm

Mr. Amato, I see your words of caution to Obama supporters about the vitriol against Clinton has fallen on deaf ears. They simply cannot help themselves and they are surely not helping Obama in the fall. Being a life long Democrat with my first vote cast in 1968 I cannot even imagine not voting Democrat in Nov. but there are far too many who can and will stay home rather than vote for Obama. I don't think it has as much to do with him as with his supporters and some of these blog sites and networks that have become just insane with the Hillary Hatred.

This is the only site that I now visit on a regular basis because you have been the most fair and most objective. Many of your commenters are not either of those things but the site has remained neutral and I appreciate that. I will no longer watch MSNBC because of their bias and Keith Olberman has actually gone bat-shit crazy on air and has taken many with him. He seems to have become the person he says he hates most, O'Reilly.

Because of sites like Huff Post, Kos and Americablog and even Buzzflash where I used to buy many premiums, there are many, many Democrats who will stay home in the fall or will vote for Congress and leave blank the choice for President.

I really do believe this will be a huge problem for Obama in the fall and I don't think he will win. This should have been a cakewalk for the Democrats but I think far too many people are counting on the voters doing the right thing. That has never been a strong suit for voters. They will and have voted against their own interest for various reasons many times in the past - I don't think this year will be an exception.

Bluesage @ 136:

Mr. Amato, I see your words of caution to Obama supporters about the vitriol against Clinton has fallen on deaf ears. They simply cannot help themselves and they are surely not helping Obama in the fall. Being a life long Democrat with my first vote cast in 1968 I cannot even imagine not voting Democrat in Nov. but there are far too many who can and will stay home rather than vote for Obama. I don't think it has as much to do with him as with his supporters and some of these blog sites and networks that have become just insane with the Hillary Hatred.

This is the only site that I now visit on a regular basis because you have been the most fair and most objective. Many of your commenters are not either of those things but the site has remained neutral and I appreciate that. I will no longer watch MSNBC because of their bias and Keith Olberman has actually gone bat-shit crazy on air and has taken many with him. He seems to have become the person he says he hates most, O'Reilly.

Because of sites like Huff Post, Kos and Americablog and even Buzzflash where I used to buy many premiums, there are many, many Democrats who will stay home in the fall or will vote for Congress and leave blank the choice for President.

I really do believe this will be a huge problem for Obama in the fall and I don't think he will win. This should have been a cakewalk for the Democrats but I think far too many people are counting on the voters doing the right thing. That has never been a strong suit for voters. They will and have voted against their own interest for various reasons many times in the past - I don't think this year will be an exception.

If Clinton voters do not vote, then they will do it against her own wishes. They will find no inspiration in her speech at the Democratic National Convention, surely the most publicly viewed speech she will make this year. And if they won't vote for Obama it will be even after Clinton has asked them to. If they won't vote because of the way the media treated Clinton in a misogynistic way, they will do so in spite of the fact that the man they will let win called his own wife a c**t and made an ugly joke about Clinton's own daughter. If they won't vote because of the vitriol from Obama supporters, then they won't vote because of the vitriol from McCain supporters, for sure.

But you can bet they'll vote on American Idol or America's Next Top Model.

Funny how the candidate for unity have such divisive followers who are so quick to project that divisiveness onto others.

Then they fault people for reacting the way they wanted them to.

It seems that as I joked a few years ago, the Springerization of the up-and-coming electorate who claim they'll be less divisive than those before them.

This is one Pennsylvanian who will not give Obama her vote. I was interested at first until I saw him for what he is, a back stabbing brat who blames his sibling for all his actions and lets others take the blame for his poor behavior. I voted for Hillary in the primary and it seems I lost, well so be it. I voted for Kerry and Gore and lost. I had to live with it and I will again. I did bother me that you hated the fact that I even had my chance to vote, you wanted it over before it got to my state. You voted so the h*ll with me and what my state had to say. North Eastern Penna. where I live went for Hillary by 70 to 80 percent. Lets see you win our state without us.

ysbaddaden @ 140:

Funny how the candidate for unity have such divisive followers who are so quick to project that divisiveness onto others.

Then they fault people for reacting the way they wanted them to.

It seems that as I joked a few years ago, the Springerization of the up-and-coming electorate who claim they'll be less divisive than those before them.

Funny how the followers of the candidate of disunity has followers that can't see that divisiveness among the followers of both sides has been an equal two-way street. Let's just face it already, with either candidate we are gonna lose because we are such petulant pissants who can't see the forest for the trees huh?

144 LunaStick

My hope is that the divisiveness in both camps are due to trolls trying to stir trouble, and of course the young, who think screaminig accusations at each other at the top of their lungs is called "debate."

I fault the young, but I've seen it in adults too, so perhaps we're speaking in terms of emotional maturity and not chronological.

Well, who would have known democracy would require knowing how to use blockquotes? Apologies if I screw this one up too.

Dan @ 145:

Nicole Belle @ 113:

Now here's my question for you: November is coming sooner than you know. Obama will be the nominee. But there are almost half of the registered Democrats did not vote for him and have been sustaining their support for a candidate that you want to decry loudly, longly and without constraint as being as bad as Bush/Cheney. They have endured being called trolls, right wing plants, idiots and much, much worse over the last five months.

How do you convince them after all YOU'VE said and done, that they should support YOUR candidate in November? How do you entice them to not sit this one out?

...
However, as the official policy of this site, the only side we're taking is the Democratic side. We want a Democrat in the White House and we see John McCain as the candidate whose chances we must destroy.

You are free to disagree, but we're not all that worried about your predictions of our jumping the shark when you're clearly not thinking on a larger scale than "Hillary is a bad person."

Well, I confess, I've checked in here a lot less frequently during the primaries as well. I think you've largely opted out, especially early on, of an incredibly important discussion over the last six months; what direction should the Democratic party take from here? This is the conversation that's been dominating conversations I have in bars, at work and by email (admittedly, even with liquor, those conversations are more civil than on most blog threads). Last year, it was Alberto Gonzales, this year, it's this.

I think the reason it's going to be hard to come together in November is that this race was about something more fundamental than personalities and hurt feelings. Must good Democrats aspire to be crusaders for issues from the sixties (issues that, in fairness, go back as far as the country)? Or have those battles been fought and won to the extent that we can take a chance on a different generation and a different approach?

Maybe I've painted the difference in a way that suits my point of view, but this is the unresolved question we're all grappling with and, I think, suppressed turnout in November will have less to do with hurt feelings than with fundamental differences in outlook.

I appreciate that you haven't gotten a lot of love for trying to stay neutral, but you're not always loved when you call em like you see em. Neutral, but still ready to call horses**t, horses**t. And, in that way, try to steer the conversation away from gotcha personality crap to the stuff still threatens to separate us in November. The stuff that each side still trying to make the other understand. It's not enough this spring to say Democrats are defined simply by anger at Bill O'Reilly. In real life, I don't talk about him any more.