I Still Hate Claire McCaskill (JM)

I'll make a deal with all Obama supporters. I will start supporting him if you will join me in drumming Claire McCaskill out of the Democratic Party. Today she claimed the Clintons "keep throwing nails in front of the bus" as a justification for bringing up things like Whitewater and Clinton land deals for which they were long ago exonerated. I mean go negative if you want, I hope everyone enjoys a heaping dose of the "new politics" and "hope" we are getting. But there are two quick things I want to address here:

1. If you cannot beat Hillary and "unify" the Democratic party then how in the world are we supposed to believe that you can "unify" red and blue states. On face such a claim is absurdist, if you have to roll in the mud to beat someone with almost exactly the same positions as you then you are not going win against the GOP in any other way. In fact, if this is what it takes to win then why not nominate Hillary instead, she is much better at it and more competent.

2. I wish Obama supporters would understand the weird, disingenuous nature of phrases like "throwing nails in front of the bus". Essentially, since he won Iowa, his supporters are treating Hillary like a felon for trying to win the nomination. This is the presidency and quite frankly it deserves to be contested, especially between two very strong candidates. This weird notion that Obama's politics and negative campaigning somehow legitimate, but Hillary's is not is actually one of the slimier tactics used by Obama and his supporters.

Anyway, I still hate Claire McCaskill and I definitely hate self-righteousness. We are about to see how genuine is the Obama campaign's commitment to a "new politics". My guess is that they will have surrogates go negative and deny responsibility and when they go negative themselves they will blame Hillary. New politics, just like the old, but looks more like an iPhone.

(Hat tip: Ben Smith)

An Open Letter to Obama Supporters (JM)

It’s over. We Clinton supporters know this, because most of us are pretty smart. We get that Obama is going to be the nominee and the truth is that, for the most part, we’re okay with this. Barack Obama is a smart man with good advisors who clearly has a talent for politics. So yes, we’ll live, but the ball is totally in your court now.

What I mean by this is that polls have shown almost 28 percent of Hillary’s Democratic supporters are ready to peel off and vote for John McCain. This is obviously insane and those numbers will decrease, but how much they decrease is entirely up to you. So with that in mind as a fairly cerebral Clinton supporter let me give you some advice on how to not alienate former supporters of Hillary.

1. Don’t gloat: Seriously, I swear if I see any Facebook statuses, away messages or get any e-mails proclaiming how happy you are that Hillary is gone or the Saint Barack of Assisi has been anointed I will be far more likely to vote McCain. Your prize is that you get to have Barack Obama is the next president, you don’t get anything else. Remember, most of us simply don’t agree with you that Hillary is a terrible person or that Obama was the better candidate. Just because there are more of you doesn’t prove you’re right or more wise. So cut the crap and attack McCain.

2. Quit it with the pep rally crap: Most of us are glad we are no longer in high school. We don’t need to yell out, “Yes we can!” or hear that “We’re the ones we’ve been waiting for.” It is silly and comports to the exact sort of image that the McCain people will use to attack Obama in the general. I am happy if Barack Obama makes you feel good, but keep it on the inside or make arguments about policy and politics. I am fine with these, there are many good ones. For instance, I hear somewhere that John McCain knows next to nothing about the economy and that he’s eleventy billion years old. A lot of us don’t want to be part of a movement, we want to be part of a party with a candidate. Obama hasn’t changed the way politics is done, he’s politics as usual with a lot of charm. Start acting that way, because we’re definitely not going to get swept up and if you want us aboard (and you need us) stop with the alienating, weird behavior.

3. Stop equating McCain with Bush: This is a generalist thing I suppose, but it seems like one of Obama’s main assaults on McCain will be equating him with Bush. He’s not Bush, though he is a bit of a war-mongerer he eminently more practical. Actually see David Brooks column for some good distinctions in terms of foreign policy. He is also way more likable and a war hero. The fact is though, if you’re going to make him in to Bush III and he simply proves he isn’t, it’s game over. Personality and image is sadly what politics has been about this election cycle, but it won’t win against McCain. Issues and character can and will, attack McCain, don’t attack by analogy.

So in sum, I still think this is a mistake, but you win. Now act like real winners and bring together the party instead of enjoying what will assured by a Pyrrhic victory if you continue with this nonsense.

The Davids: Brooks and Bowie (JM)

So if there are two things I love in this world it's David Brooks and David Bowie (well probably not, but they are two things I really really like). Anyway, this morning brings a David double-dip:

David Brooks- As has bizarrely become the case lately David Brooks, once again, gives the only really coherent column I have seen all week. He discusses how Obama's essentially different type of change, bottom-up and collective, has set the tone for this election. How this campaign has never been about "change" per se; but rather about how it is to be effected. I think this is some spot on analysis, the level of empowerment Obama has given his supporters is nothing short of impressive. This has been a campaign specifically tailored for the YouTube, blagosphere, Facebook society in which we live. I remain skeptical, but Brooks' analysis of its construction is pretty excellent.

David Bowie- As you are all aware David Bowie is a huge supporter of Ron Paul. In fact, it is well known that the original lyrics of Ziggy Stardust included the lines:

Making love with his ego Ziggy sucked up into his mind
Like a leper messiah
When the kids had killed the man I had to break up the band
We should privatize schools and let the market solve

Anyway, some profoundly weird stuff. Alright, so I am mostly kidding, but wouldn't be awesome if Bowie were secretly a crazy libertarian. Instead, I have video of Bowie's Changes as done by the 2008 presidential candidates. There is no way in the world I can actually explain, so just watch:

How Not To Mock Hopementum (JM)

'Hope' is politics, not real Iran, Iraq policy

Hello, welcome to the next eight months. May I take your coat?

February 29, 2008

STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley@suntimes.com

The political salvos over Iraq between Barack Obama and John McCain the other day made for good political theater. More important, the exchange offered a revealing contrast between the politics of realism and the politics of hope.

Look, I have sympathy for mocking Hopementum. I have often found Obama lacking in realism. But his foreign policy is not any more naïve than faith in the magical surge. The truth is that foreign policy questions rarely makes any sense in elections as decisions on this front are often incredibly specific and contingent and can turn on a dime. Could you imagine in the Nixon-Kennedy debates if the crazy antecedent to crazy ole’ Tim Russert asked, “John Kennedy, what if you were to find evidence of nuclear weapons placed by the Soviet Union in Cuba. You then track ships that may be coming to supply these missile bases…” We can have an idea if a candidate is interventionist or not, their stand on multilateralism vs. unilateralism (a question which hasn’t popped up in 2341423454363256 debates) and several other singular issues, but it is nearly impossible to gauge a person’s foreign policy acumen by anything but their previous work. Of course, that would be a legitimate criticism of Obama, we have no idea what he’d be like, but not this inanity.

It began with a question to Obama during the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday. Obama has pledged to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and was asked if he reserved the right to go back into Iraq. He responded that "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

The next day McCain mocked Obama, ''I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq." Obama fired back, ''I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets. But I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

So what is Obama's Iraq strategy? It seems to be that he knows al-Qaida is in Iraq but he's going to pull out anyway. But if al-Qaida establishes a base in Iraq, he will go back in. Does that sound confused to you? Me, too.

I mean seriously, is this all that confusing? First of all, there is a huge difference between a presence in Iraq (which al-Qaida clearly has) and establishing Iraq as a main base for al-Qaida operations. Currently al-Qaida is an operation spread out amongst many countries with no central focal point. If Iraq turns in to the new Afghanistan, then yes we might have to rereturn. Secondly, maybe I am just a cynic, but does anyone really believe we are actually leaving Iraq any time soon. Sure, I expect a troop drawdown, the end of stop-loss, and sensible policies to be put in to place, but I have no expectation we won’t be in Iraq for a very long time. I just hope our next president is intelligent enough to make such sufficient changes in our policy that we can seek and will receive the help of the international community in securing Iraqi territory.

His policy, in a nutshell, seems to be this: Pull troops out of Iraq and hope for the best. And anyway, the real issue is what cowboy Bush and McCain did five years ago.

Look the future matters, but past is the best set of data points to determine the future. Obama has almost no data points*, McCain has some and they’re not all that good.

Given the nation's weariness with the war, that message has proved to be appealing to Democratic primary voters. They want no truck with the grim realism of McCain's position that Iraq is part of the wider struggle against Islamist jihadism and will require a long-term U.S. commitment. Arguing over what happened in 2003 is a way to avoid facing today's realities, McCain reasonably argues.

Have you ever notice when people want to do really bad things they couch it as the realist position. Me, I’ll go for empirical evidence and a debate on actual merits, instead of assuming the worst possible scenario must be the correct one.

Hope also figures in Obama's willingness, as president, to meet, without preconditions, America's adversaries like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently said he wouldn't "shake hands with people who refuse to recognize Israel." He didn't mention names but he meant the Iranian president.

What’s your point here? I am actually bowled over by the irony of a neo-con position being bolstered by the French President… I am sorry, the Freedom President. Look, there’s a difference between liking Ahmadinejad or even compromising with him and meeting with him. Ignoring our enemies is great playground politics, but terrible international politics.

Obama's position is cheered by his enthusiasts. They see his embrace of yes-we-can-talk diplomacy as a refreshing about-face from Bush's bellicosity. Hillary Clinton is the voice of realism this time. But her efforts to paint Obama's position as a naive one for a president in a dangerous world apparently aren't swaying many Democrats. Her cause wasn't helped when Bush chimed in Thursday, saying meeting with a tyrant like Ahmadinejad only buttresses an oppressive government, confuses U.S. allies and demoralizes reformers in Iran.

I am pretty sure Hillary Clinton would a better statesman than Barack Obama. However, you cannot discount the overwhelmingly popular overseas support that Obama seems to have. His popularity rating amongst European countries is insanely high. I have no idea why this is, and generally making the European public happy is not really a concern I have when choosing a president, but giving the low level of regard for the United States that exists throughout the world these days some good feeling is not a bad second prize.

Given the complexities of the world, a president occasionally does have to meet with unsavory characters in pursuing vital foreign policy initiatives. Even when you think you've laid the proper groundwork, disaster can follow. President Bill Clinton labored mightily to coax Yasser Arafat to a negotiated end of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict only to see his work and peace hopes atomized by Arafat's allegiance to terrorism.

So your solution was to do what? Not meet with Arafat? I fail to see how this was an argument in your favor. Moreover, it wasn’t just Arafat’s allegiance to terrorism. It was that as part of his coalition there were many more hardline splinter groups that were only quasi under the control of Arafat. These groups were less likely to acquiesce to the deal made by Arafat and that is why things fell apart. Which, of course, is an argument for negotiating with the most hardline parties in these sort of deals. Which, by the by, is the opposite of your point. To wit: You lose.

A President Obama would be taking a big gamble meeting with a rogue like Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Iran wants nuclear weapons, is a sponsor of terror responsible for mass murder as far away as Argentina, and has been at the heart of Islamist-inspired turmoil for nearly three decades. It stones women to death for adultery. It executes more children than any country in the world. Tehran lashes gays and kills them by public hanging. It jails, tortures and executes political dissidents.

Please explain the gamble. It’s not like Obama would meet up with him to have a round of golf and stone some women. We can have a meeting, it can be cold and awkward, that’s fine. It can be the foreign policy equivalent of running in to an ex-girlfriend on the street. Exchange some pleasantries, pretend you’ll get coffee sometimes soon and go home and complain to your friends. Meeting with someone is not endorsing someone, at least not in this case. The only time I would be inclined towards this argument would be meeting with a leader of a particular faction from a country involved in a civil war.

When Columbia University, to its shame, gave him a platform last year, Ahmadinejad used it, in effect, to advocate an end to Israel, deny the Holocaust and claim no homosexuals are in Iran.

In a recent speech, Ahmadinejad said Iran has two missions. One was to complete the Islamic revolution in Iran. "Our nation's second important mission," he said, "is introducing the Islamic revolution to the entire mankind."

Hope may make for a good American political campaign, but it's not the basis for foreign policy.

It’s adorable when people think they’ve proved points that they have failed, utterly, to make.

*I suspect someone is going to bring up a certain speech, which I just couldn’t care less about as evidence; he wasn’t in the Senate, he didn’t see the same intelligence they did, and there was little to no cost to repudiating the war in so far as it would distinguish him from the pack if he was right and if wrong there was no cost because he could always claim to have not seen the same intelligence as those who voted for the war.

What Lies in Wait or Bill Kristol is Hiding in Your Bushes (JM)

It’s All About Him

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Normally I wouldn’t touch William Kristol with a ten-foot pole. It’s like shooting proverbial terrible conservative writers in a barrel. However, I am going to make an exception for this piece, because is emblematic of the type of bombardment Barack Obama is about to face in the general election, should Hillary not pull out the miracle.*

Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.

Way to start us off with a William Howard Taft-sized lie. If Obama has proclaimed he removed the flag pin because of fashion minimalism, you would be skewering him for that as well. This article would have started: “No big deal, Barack Obama said choosing not to be patriotic is no big deal.”

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

This a bit pompous, I grant you that. But the sentiment is totally fair.

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

I agree that the explanation was a bit… err… high-minded, but the sentiment is totally legitimate. I mean seriously Bill, may I call you Bill… do you really not think that dissent and courage is amongst the most patriotic of virtues? You can feel free to question whether Obama really has spoken out on controversial issues, but not the principle itself.

Fast forward to last Monday in Wisconsin. Michelle Obama, in the course of a stump speech, remarked, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Michelle Obama’s adult life goes back to the mid-1980s. Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since then has made her proud? Apparently. For, as she said later in the same appearance: “Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn’t gotten much better.”

It’s pretty clear that this is not what she meant. Was it a politically stupid thing to say? Yes. Why? Because people like you will continually repeat it without reference to clarification and content.

Now in almost every empirical respect, American lives have in fact gotten better over the last quarter-century. And most Americans — and most Democrats — don’t think those years were one vast wasteland. So Barack Obama hastened to clarify his wife’s remarks. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said, “because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” Later in the week, Michelle Obama further explained, “What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud of how Americans are engaging in the political process.”

You know, if you’re going to use a phrase like, “almost every empirical aspect”, perhaps you ought to provide some empirical evidence. It’s true, there are certainly things that were pretty good over the last fifteen years. However, it is crazy to claim that in all respects we’re better off when the rich/poor divide has gotten more and more extreme over the last fifteen years. People continue to assume that an increase in total wealth is the only relevant measurement of economic health, but there are two other factors to consider that do not speak well for this nation in the last fifteen years. The first is distribution of wealth and the second is the buying power of the limited wealth the working class has. Both of these are ways in which the U.S. hasn’t been great empirically over the last fifteen years.

But that clearly isn’t what she was talking about. For as she had argued in the Wisconsin speech, America’s illness goes far beyond a flawed political process: “Barack knows that at some level there’s a hole in our souls.” This was a variation of language she had used earlier on the campaign trail: “Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

Okay, that quote is, in no way, evidence that Michelle Obama didn’t mean what she said she meant. In fact, it kind of lends credence to the theory of new politics. That said, if this is a real quote that’s really super disturbing and kind of makes me want to vomit.

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, in Los Angeles: “Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Alright, seriously? I have to wonder what’s hiding behind that ellipsis. But if this is basically the quote, I am again kind of disturbed. It makes me wonder why you didn’t lead with this. This is crazy, this is like some hopped-up aerobic instructor/cult leader running for President. Weird…

So we don’t have to work to improve our souls. Our broken souls can be fixed — by our voting for Barack Obama. We don’t have to fight or sacrifice to help our country. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our choosing Barack Obama. America can become a nation to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Barack Obama.

You were sooooo on the cusp of a good point and just overdid it by a lot. This is precisely the opposite of Obama’s general message, which is he can’t do this alone, that he needs the people with him to create a movement for change. I am cynical about this, but can easily spy the opposite of the truth which is your above paragraph.

John Kennedy, to whom Obama is sometimes compared, challenged the American people to acts of citizenship and patriotism. Barack Obama allows us to feel better about ourselves.

This is also part of the Obama scheme. This is sad Billy, may I call you Billy… we were on the same page for a minute there, but now you’re just flat out lying. Obama called for national service and has claimed he is going to demand sacrifices of the American people. It’d be nice to know what sacrifices, but still… it’s not just a cult of him.

Obama likes to say, “we are the change that we seek” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Obama’s rhetorical skill makes his candidacy appear almost collective rather than individual. That’s a democratic courtesy on his part, and one flattering to his followers. But the effectual truth of what Obama is saying is that he is the one we’ve been waiting for.

What is it about NYT columnist and their ability to just assert things as true. Here is a lot of evidence for X, but of course we all know the truth is negation X. I mean I suppose that is the only way to survive as a neocon, but still: wretch.

Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

What are all people who were or would be waaaaaaaaay better presidents than GWB or eleventy billion year old John McCain.

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

Oh Billiam, may I call you Billiam… I agree, McCain has done way more good for this country. I would totally vote for John McCain if I wasn’t convinced he might invade Mexico. Seriously, McCain has been for and against tax cuts, has a spotty record on the environment despite rhetoric to the otherwise and has espoused socially conservative opinions that make it more likely he’ll about more Scalias to the bench.

This type of argument; quotes out of context, questioning of patriotism and attacks on experience is what await us in the general. I have no doubt we can win, no matter who the candidate is, but it simply not going to be easy. Too many Obama supporters I know think that his numbers in red states and lovability will make Barack almost impossible to beat in the general. This is foolish, and this is how we lose the general. We will lose many of the states Obama has won in the primaries and McCain is a very different sort of competition amongst independents. He has this bizarro outsider appeal, while still having tons of experience and nearly unassailable character credentials (despite evidence to the otherwise). We as Democrats need to be ready for this, and should start with a couple of important things: 1) Both Obamas and their surrogates have to be very very careful with their language over the coming months, maybe add some traditional patriotic rhetoric to their stump. A sort of “only in America, could I have gained this opportunity” kind of speech would be a winning effort; 2) resist the call of picking a fresh-faced VP. The Obama camp seems to be in love with newer red state Democratics. It would be a mistake to add some one like Governor Sebelius to the ticket, instead he needs to balance with experience and strength (also she is the least compelling speaker I have seen in a long time, even if she gets reelected in Kansas). The best choices for Obama would be Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, or even Hillary should she be willing to accept (probably not though).

Anyway, prepare to be ill, prepare to hear all about Barack Hussein Obama, prepare to hear about drugs, prepare to hear about Rezko. For all y’all who had a problem with the way Clinton campaigned, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Not even the tip of the iceberg. It’s going to get way worse before it gets better.

*This author is fully cognizant of the fact that some people, perhaps certain co-bloggers of mine, would not consider this a miracle.

Why It's Time For Hillary to Dropout of the Race (JM)

It pains me to write this. Let me say upfront that I sincerely believe the Democratic electorate has made a sincere mistake. Barack Obama is going to have a much tougher time against John McCain than Hillary would have. This is despite the polls that indicate otherwise, since those polls mean absolutely nothing as no contrast between the candidates had yet been made. I also think Hillary would have made a better president, more able to exact concessions from the Republicans. Let's just say I have a cynic's faith in the ability of this "movement" to sustain itself. That said, it is time for Hillary to go.

It's not just that she has received ten losses in a row, it's that they have gotten progressively worse for her. It's easy to blame the media for this, in fact the entire narrative of this campaign can be seen as a function of their choices. This is a seriously interesting question, that will require some serious thinking about in the next election cycle. Consider that we hold the media establishment to be part of a free, democratic society, but in many ways the voice of the media is a real palatable force that undermines democratic choice. The standard response to this, is that the market will regulate media forces; as people will tune in to the news that is most accurate. However, that neglects the fact that a perfect market requires perfect information and it is totally unclear how one can regulate the market of information itself. But, I digress here, it is an interesting question to pick up at some later time. The point of all of this is, with every Obama win the media continued to coronate him, thus propelling him from one state to the next. The effect here was to slowly disintegrate Hillary's base, until Wisconsin last night, a very white working-class state, went solidly for Obama. Hillary barely won amongst women and lost every other demographic group.

Now the media smells blood. Political obituaries of the Clintons are starting to pop up everywhere. She absolutely needs to win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania and she needs to win them big. This no longer seems like a very likely proposition, absent some extreme game changer. There are two possible ways this happens: 1) Clinton could absolutely mutilate Obama in the next debate; 2) She can go nuclear with the negative attacks against Obama. Let's examine both scenarios.

Let's says she wins the debate big. There are a litany of issues from which she can draw a contrast: health care, environment and energy, economic rebates, etc. The problem is that if she makes a successful attack on, let's say health care mandates, but Obama still wins the nomination, her attacks will be used against Obama in the general and, more importantly, by GOP legislators come the fall. The other type of problem Hillary could create is on an issue like the environment. By all accounts Obama is more green than McCain (actually the double meaning almost certainly applies here). However, there is a clear perception that McCain, of Republicans, is pretty friendly towards environmental legislation. Should Hillary muddy the waters (which is certainly possible, given Obama's support of the Cheney environmental legislation) on this issue, it will be much harder to leverage this as an issue in the general.

The second type of victory would come from finally landing an attack on Obama's inexperience. The issue here is that this basically echoes McCain's talking points as well. It's a perfectly legitimate argument and there has been a lot of speculation as to why the voters aren't buying it. In fact, there are some who go so far as to speculate that McCain is wasting his time with these arguments. These people are dead wrong, early in the election it was the liberal base that was driving Hopementum, not the independents he was attracting. This is why the experience arguments of the most seasoned Democratic candidates did not quite fly (also, again, the media). Once it was contrast between Clinton and Obama I suspect people simply were not buying the massive experience distinction between the two candidates. Now, I think that there is a very real distinction, not quite what Clinton claims, but still a distinction. However, what I think matters not at all, or we'd be waiting for the Biden/Obama ticket at the convention (perhaps, we will see Obama/Biden... silly, but a solid ticket nonetheless). But regardless, voters will see the experience distinction in play between Obama and McCain. If the Clintons make the arguments against experience in any way more vociferous than they currently are, they will be unable to be part of the coming election. In fact, the entire machine will almost be rendered useless, while helping give McCain a leg up.

Regardless of what you feel about Bill and Hillary, winning the general without their machine is almost unthinkable. They still own the best attack dogs in town, and are the best at defending against GOP tactics like "swift-boating" or "Michelle Obamaing". The truth is that this is an odds thing now. If I thought that Hillary had a better than twenty percent chance of taking this nomination, I would be in favor of it. The harm, at this point, outweighs the merits of pressing forward, thus I am forced to conclude that she should dropout.

That said, once this campaign is over, it is time for us to take a long hard look at a primary process that favors intensity over preference and would disenfranchise voters because of the actions of their party leaders. The truth is that if Michigan and Florida counted there is no doubt Hillary would have won a substantial number of delegates there and this whole narrative would have been different. Imagine how the momentum story would have looked if Hillary had pulled off NH, MI, and FL all in a row. Of course, this all points to the press needing to be more responsible in constructing campaign narratives, or a system that doesn't allow them such long term influence. For better of for worse, Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party now, and it'll take a disaster to stop him... we probably should not generate that disaster internally.

Reason #221243234 That I Love Dahlia Lithwick (JM)

For those of you who don't know me, and most who do, I am a bit Dahlia Lithwick obsessed, she is the generally intelligent and thoughtful legal analyst for Slate. What's more is she is incredibly witty and incisive and writes fake break up letters to Barack Obama. So really this is just a public service announcement, read her stuff, it's worth it.

Maureen Dowd is a Corrupt Televangelist (JM)

A Flawed Feminist Test

Let me guess, more anti-Hillary screed from the Op-Ed section that is beginning to sound as if it is written by Rush Limbaugh.

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

Russell Berman, a young reporter for The New York Sun, trailed Bill Clinton around Maryland all day Sunday. The former president was on his best behavior, irritating the smattering of press.

This whole debacle, this is your fault. Let’s be fair, Hillary didn’t run a great campaign, but you want to know why she looks so terrible. It is you, Maureen Dowd, and I bet you’re proud of yourself.

After Bill’s last speech at Leisure World retirement community in Silver Spring, Berman interviewed two women in the audience.

Elaine Sirkis, 77, an Obama supporter, confided that she just isn’t sure she’s ready for a woman president. Betty Conway, 83, a Hillary supporter, confided that she just isn’t sure she’s ready for a black president.

As Conway walked away, Sirkis smiled sheepishly. “I’m sorry,” she told Berman sweetly about her friend. “She’s a bigot.”

Two reasons you are a terrible journalist: a) This isn’t even your own reporting, you are quoting someone else’s reporting. You have an incredibly budget that is used to fly you anywhere you want and an absurd salary and you are basing your column off of someone else’s reporting; b) You have basically just made two elderly women look like terrible people in the New York Times to make no point whatsoever. I mean serious, what a terrible, terrible thing you just did. I really, truly despise you.

We’re not just in the most vertiginous election of our lives. We’re in another national seminar on gender and race that is teaching us about who we are as we figure out what we want America to be.

Gratuitous use of the word “vertiginous” much? Look at the second sentence. Seriously, it’s actually in like three or four different tenses at once. Also, there is nothing seminar-like about the gender and race issues in this election. I don’t think this has been a learn experience, except maybe as a cautionary tale.

It’s not yet clear which prejudice will infect the presidential contest more — misogyny or racism.

If you have it your way, both.

Many women I talk to, even those who aren’t particularly fond of Hillary, feel empathy for her, knowing that any woman in a world dominated by men has to walk a tightrope between femininity and masculinity, strength and vulnerability.

Don’t pretend this is just about men, this is also about the press. It’s not just Chris Matthews, it’s you too Maureen. Your hateful anti-Clinton columns are no small part of setting the tone for this election.

They see double standards they hate — when male reporters described Hillary’s laugh as “a cackle” or her voice as “grating,” when Rush Limbaugh goes off on her wrinkles or when male pundits seem gleeful to write her political obituary. Several women I know, who argue with their husbands about Hillary, refer with a shudder to the “Kill the Witch” syndrome.

Seriously, you are like the Mark Penn of the misogyny set. Some people have been talking about Barack Obama’s drug use, I am not one of them, but some people have. Some people have been saying horribly abusive things about Hillary, allow me to catalogue them, pretend it’s journalism and then go to be bed at night satisfied that I am still a true member of the cause.

In a webcast, prestidigitator Penn Jillette talks about a joke he has begun telling in his show. He thinks the thunderous reaction it gets from audiences shows that Hillary no longer has a shot.

The joke goes: “Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says it’s not fair, because they’re being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, there’s no White Bitch Month.”

Does ANYBODY read your articles any more? Do you even have editors? Do you even still work for the NYT or do you just run around every Sunday and Wednesday morning and paste the article you just printed from your dot matrix printer in to the space where Nicholas Kristof’s column’s supposed to be? Also, I was about to accuse you of misspelling Penn Jillette’s name, but I was wrong, you see I did a little something called half a second of research before typing this, a practice in which you rarely seem to engage.

Of course, jokes like that — even Jillette admits it’s offensive — are exactly what may give Hillary a shot. When the usually invulnerable Hillary seems vulnerable, many women, even ones who don’t want her to win, cringe at the idea of seeing her publicly humiliated — again.

This is the new line: “Our abuse of Hillary might be helping her win.” This is the weird justification that helps Maureen sleep at night. The truth is that fundamentally poor journalism may or may not help Hillary, but it certainly doesn’t help voters make correct decisions. The job of columnist should be to bring a hint of clarity and contrast to a race between two eminently well-suited individuals, not obfuscate and scandalize. My god, it’s like you work at the Post.

And since women — and some men — tend to be more protective when she is down, it is impossible to rule out a rally, especially if voters start to see Obama, after his eight-contest rout, as that maddening archetypal figure: the glib golden boy who slides through on charm and a smile.

You cannot just make up archetypal figures. Also you LOVE archetypal figures. Every version of any public figure you talk about is basically a bare sketch of an intimation. Or a metaphor about the Real World.

Those close to Hillary say she’s feeling blue. It’s an unbearable twist of fate to spend all those years in the shadow of one Secretariat, only to have another gallop past while you’re plodding toward the finish line.

I am not sure race horses make the best metaphor, particularly not Secretariat who had no actually comparables. Also there aren’t two different Secretariats, also a problem. There are like a trillion sports metaphors or political metaphors you could have used here. Heck, how about, it sucks to be Hillary, it’s like being laserdisc, stuck in the shadow of VHS and then quickly eclipsed by DVDs. Actually, that is a terrible metaphor, but yet still way way better than yours.

I know that the attacks against powerful women can be harsh and personal and unfair, enough to make anyone cry.

Then why do you engage in them?

But Hillary is not the best test case for women. We’ll never know how much of the backlash is because she’s a woman or because she’s this woman or because of the ick factor of returning to the old Clinton dysfunction.

An attack within an attack? Nice. I think you can very clearly separate out comments of all of those stripes. Everything Tweety says on Hardball, that is pure misogyny. You can tell because you can analyze the comments. You want to lump them together, because your only goal is to point out how much people hate Hillary.

While Obama aims to transcend race, Hillary often aims to use gender to her advantage, or to excuse mistakes. In 1994, after her intransigence and secrecy-doomed health care plan, she told The Wall Street Journal that she was “a gender Rorschach test.”

“If somebody has a female boss for the first time, and they’ve never experienced that,” she said, “well, maybe they can’t take out their hostility against her so they turn it on me.”

I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss gender, gender matters. Obama has not been nearly so shy about race as the MSM would have you believe, it’s just that with all the focus on annihilating Hillary it’s hard to get in much more vitriol.

As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you can’t take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies.

Everyone has this. There is no ideal female test case because gender is only one part of identity. By all accounts Hillary is smart and competent. If she loses this it won’t be because of her gender but because of Barack Obama.

Instead of carving out a separate identity for herself, she has become more entwined with Bill. She is running bolstered by his record and his muscle. She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor. She says she’s learned from her mistakes, but that’s not a compelling pitch.

Working in the White House and learning its in and outs is a very compelling pitch. I actually have no idea what kind of pitch would compel Maureen. Perhaps an awesome nickname? Maybe, a trip to hangout with the case of One Tree Hill.

As a senator, she was not a leading voice on important issues, and her Iraq vote was about her political viability.

I agree with this a bit on the second part, of course we can’t take a measure of Obama because giving a speech is different than voting. Also the war didn’t seem like the worst idea in the world at the time. The Bush administration lied to us and cooked up intelligence. That’s how you answer that claim. I guarantee you, if WMDs had been there Obama would be no where near this primary right now. As for the first point, prove that, give me evidence don’t just assert things. People who don’t know you might think that you are basing this on fact, rather than your hatred of Hillary.

She told New York magazine’s John Heilemann that before Iowa taught her that she had to show her soft side, “I really believed I had to prove in this race from the very beginning that a woman could be president and a woman could be commander in chief. I thought that was my primary mission.”

If Hillary fails, it will be her failure, not ours.

Look, I agree it won’t be America’s failure, but it will be the press’. This entire election cycle has been Obama and the MSM against Hillary Clinton. No matter which side you support, there is no disputing that. Is Hillary perfect, lord no, but is St. Obama of Hopementum perfect, not by a long shot. But if aliens came down and read our newspapers they would wonder why American was having any trouble deciding between one candidate who the mostest perfectest person ever and another who appears to be a cross between the Emperor from Star Wars and e. coli bacteria. And this, Maureen, is partially your fault.