She's arguing change by evidence of identity politics--which is not what Obama is talking about. That said, this may be an effective way to blunt his change rhetoric IF he and his surrogates don't jump on this pronto.

The big upset already happened on Sunday.

I think the big turnout means the party regulars are coming out because it's looking close.

I also am, therefore, cautiously anticipating a big victory for Senator Clinton, although I think the Obama camp and supporters have spun it well enough to keep it going for the next couple months at least.

Hillary wins her expected states and takes an 150 delegate majority = Hillary wins.

Anything less and the headline is "Obama stays close (or matches) Hillary." - even though we know a win is a win (see Obama's Nevada and Florida spins).

Again, this is exciting, good for Democracy and for our progressive side of the aisle, and I'll proudly support whoever my fellow Democrats choose out of this fine field.

Go Hillary!

Two brief responses:

1)

It's an argument that the Hillary campaign has failed to make as forcefully as it might have.

Of course you are right about that, and it is kind of surprising. My Aunt Gail in FL is quite excited about Clinton for this very reason and gets volubly entheused about this when I talk to her on the phone, but I have not heard nearly as much of it from the Clinton campaign itself. For what it is worth, however, I have chalked that up as a mark in Clinton's favor. I kind of like the way that she respects our intelligence enough not to push the aren't-you-excited-I'm-a-woman bit. I would not hold it against her if she sees that this line works for Obama and she has decided to try it herself (it would hardly be the first time in this campaign that she has paid my guy the "sincerest form of flattery").

2) I know that this "who can actually deliver" line is supposed to be one of Clinton's strong selling points, but actuall it is one of the larger reasons why I am in Obama's column. I have dim hopes for Clinton achieving much if she is elected. Wonkish smarts notwithstanding, she has to get things through Congress and history has shown that her husband was most successful when he was trying to get Republican goals through Congress. When he tried to achieve Democratic ends, he was far less successful. Given that the folks who did not like him like her even less, I find it hard to believe that she will be any more successful in building the sorts of coalitions necessary to achieve any goals but those of our opponents. If you doubt the soundness of my suppositions, you should read The Cooper Concerns in todays NYT.

I haven't been able to post one yet--but then, you'll probably never read this.

Yeah, thanks, Clinton campaign. I don't think we're really so interested in changing history. I think we're more interested in changing trajectory. And I don't think that's going to come down to issues of race or gender.

But thanks for trying to trivialize the real issues for us...

Yeah. Thanks, Clinton campaign. I don't think we're really so interested in changing history. I think we're more interested in changing trajectory. And I don't think that's going to come down to issues of race or gender.

But thanks for trying to trivialize the real issues for us...

PS: These boards are REALLY messed up. I'm constantly having to log in, log out, log in, log out just to post a message. And half the time it doesn't work anyway. Hope it's fixed soon.

Yes, I am still having trouble posting comments.

First try at attempting a post in 2 days. Fingers crossed.

Sounds like a dog-whistle to the folks that want to see a joint ticket. It's clear that the Clinton camp have officially adopted the 2 (3?) in 1 approach too appeal to undecideds. That's why Obama's camp, to include Michelle the other day, have tried to push back against the unspoken thought-line of, "if I pick Clinton, she'll pick Obama...". It's difficult to push back against without seeming to be fractious, but the longer it sits out there without being addressed, but more traction it'll get with fence sitters.

They would both "make" history.
Only Obama would "change" history.

I think most folks have this right. Hillary's people think that Obama is popular as the 'change' candidate because he's black. It's not -- that has little to do with his appeal as a "transformative figure" and "agent for change." I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that he's of a different generation -- he's not caught up in the right/wrong side of the Vietnam war. He expects the battles to be about the issues -- not about him.

The fact that Obama was the third black Senator since reconstruction -- and the only one currently serving -- was celebrated, but quickly forgotten. The fact that Nancy Pelosi was the first female speaker was celebrated, then forgotten. People think its great that non-white-males have the opportunities and even greater when they seize those opportunities.

But Obama's message isn't about that. He's working under the assumption that THAT's already possible. His message for change is about leadership that doesn't try to alieante people, transparency, and the actual, god's honest belief that government exists by/for/from the people.

That's why Clinton's me-too message falls flat.

along---

Does Obama have a time machine?

I know you guys are still working out the kinks...but man this is frustrating. The kinks still exist.

When you post you are changed to as Gnopple said and 1995 looking page and when you try to come back here you have to log back in. Something is still way off in the system.

Not fun.

i dont see how electing bill clinton to a third term would make history...

Seriously though, with Obama it feels historic. I don't get that feeling with hillary. With Hillary its more like, been there done that.

How is getting there because you happen to be married to a former president, changing history! Two wives of Juan Peron have already blazed that trail, and the current woman president of Argentina has followed her husband into the office, so Hillary, you are not changing anything. On the other hand, the election of an African American candidate to the Presidency of the USA would be an actual globally significant historical precedent.

I tried to post this around an hour ago, and it has still not posted, so I will try again. I apologize if this ends up posting twice:

Two responses:

1)

It's an argument that the Hillary campaign has failed to make as forcefully as it might have.

Indeed. My Aunt Gail in FL is volubly entheused about Clinton for just this reason and will let me know it every time I talk to her on the phone, but I have not heard much of this line from the Clinton campaign itself. For what little it is worth, I counted this as a mark in Clinton's favor that she respected our intelligence enough not to try the aren't-you-excited-I'm-a-woman line. Now that she is trotting it out, however, I am hard pressed to hold it against her, because it is really nothing more than an instance (one among many) of the "sincerest form of flattery" of Obama and his campaign.

2) I know that the "who can actually deliver" line is supposed to be a strong selling point for Clinton, but for me it is exactly the opposite. One of the stronger reasons why I am for Obama is that I have dim hopes of Clinton being able to accomplish much of anything in the White House. Resistance to her will simply be too great. I know that any democrat will encounter resistance, but not like Clinton. She does not possess the skills necessary to build the coalitions which will be needed to achieve anything more than the hollow "victories" of triangulation. Anyone who doubts this supposition of mine should read The Cooper Concerns in today's NYT.

Umm...but Obama can lead on Day One too, so what exactly is your point Hillary? You don't have any better experience than he does, in fact he has more experience as an elected official, and he has had more success in getting things accomplished than you have, so, again, what is your point? Is your point that you've spent more time physically inside the White House than any other candidate, is that your unique "experience" that makes you so super duper prepared for Day One? Is it because you know exactly where the restrooms are, so on Day One when you really have to go, you know the shortest route? What exactly is your point...? You may be older, you may have more years listed on your resume, but there isn't anything impressive there, and your biggest accomplishment to date has been developing a failed health care policy behind closed doors. And I'm supposed to be impressed? You have time and time again shown either horrible judgment or a complete lack of political will (Iraq, flag burning, landmines/clusterbombs, etc), again, am I supposed to be impressed with your "leadership"?

I just wish the obama crowd would stop insulting MY intelligence. Unlike his naive and ignorant supporters I remember hearing this message before. Every new guy argues for changed. Our problem is we want change without fighting for it. If you think you can get it without a fight with the DC estalblishment you are naive and ignorant of the reasons behind the CLINTON battles of the 90's. THe DEMS have a real problem. They get tired of the fight and move on to some new canidate who is harping change without having the guts to stick with those who are already in the fight. All you change blowers, the reason why we have not changed anything is because we fall for the establishments rhetoric everytime and jump on a new bandwagon. For once stick with the fight. You want to know who the DC establishment candidate is take a look at the endorsement. They want OBAMA so they can leave the 90's behind, an era that started a progressive movement and now you are buying into the garbage that we need to moveon. It was not clinton that divided this country. Reagon promised us all a new mourning in Am then proceeded to screw us over, I hesitate to fall for that line of change again. I choose to keep the fight going not run away from it. After all civil rights and sufferage did not happen over night.