Actually, there were 18 million somebodies "telling her to keep campaigning against him" -- 18 million "toxic," "psychotic," and "delusional" (and whatever other disparaging adjectives the "winners" of this primary can heap upon the "losers") somebodies, myself included. It wasn't "clear" that Sen. Clinton could not win until Sen. Obama finally managed to garner the magic number of delegates.

Where would Sen. Obama be now if he hadn't kept campaigning when, early on, it seemed "clear" that he couldn't win?!? I know where his supporters would NOT be -- they wouldn't be looking down from that "high horse" that so many of them climbed up on when Sen. Obama clinched the title of presumptive nominee!

There may well be some "sore losers" among Sen. Clinton's supporters, but one thing is certain: the "sore winners" far outnumber the "gracious winners" among the Obama supporters posting here (and at Think Progress & Daily Kos).

Posted at June 25, 2008 6:18 PM in response to Obama Making Private Calls Appealing To Hillary's Top Fundraisers -- And Sometimes Hearing Criticism In Return

"We" as in mankind, the human race; not "we" as in Israel/Israelis or America/Americans.

Posted at June 25, 2008 5:07 PM in response to How Ketziot Never Could Have Prepared Me for Abu Ghraib

I agree, BBpdx, this kind of stuff is not impressive. But it can be AMUSING when, as in this case, the nit-picker turns out to be WRONG!

Instead of spellchecking the piece, NitPicker1, try reading it. Your "correction" from contraction to possessive pronoun ignores the context of the sentence (i.e., the paragraph in which it sits), and strips the sentence of its verb. "It's [i.e., the White House is] stonewalling efforts by lawmakers...." NOT "Its [the White House's] stonewalling efforts...."

Consider yourself nit-picked, NitPicker1. Otherwise, keep up the good work!

Posted at June 25, 2008 3:45 PM in response to Today's Must Read

McCain and his ilk think waterboarding is just hunky dory. So, this kind of physical, verbal and emotional abuse (aka exorcism) won't phase them in the least.

Posted at June 11, 2008 9:31 PM in response to Is Bobby Jindal -- Who May Be On McCain's Veep Shortlist -- An Exorcist?

"I'm pretty sure most Dems are going to take Clinton campaign leaks about Bill Richardson with a massive grain of salt, given that James Carville has already revealed their campaign's thinking about Richardson."

The news about Richardson's promise made to the Clintons really puts Carville's Judas comment into context, doesn't it? In fact, Bill Clinton (purportedly) flew off the handle at the California delegate meet when one of the delegates bemoaned Carville's "attack" on Richardson. So, the sequence of events looks like this: Richardson privately but repeatedly promised not to endorse Obama; Richardson broke his promise (i.e., betrayed the Clinton camp and, apparently, without any warning); Carville threw the Judas bomb at Richardson; Bill Clinton was angered by someone so uninformed that they would chastise Carville and defend Richardson.

Posted at April 3, 2008 4:22 PM in response to Top Hillary Adviser: Richardson Privately Said Obama Is Unelectable

Phelicity, how is Sen. Clinton's 3 A.M. phone call ad an example of "the Clinton bunch...trying desperately to tag Obama" as an "Angry Black Man"?

Posted at March 19, 2008 2:34 PM in response to Cafe Reactions to the Obama Speech

I tried this as a reply once, but it ended up as a new/separate comment:

Actually, this video is just a VERY SMALL part of what you need to know. The video is brief clip of a much longer speech -- Sen. Clinton's 10/10/02 floor speech on S.R. Res. 45 (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002). Read the whole speech and then read the AUMF itself (Pub. Law 107-243—OCT. 16, 2002). (Links for both below.) Then ask yourself whether or not Bush&Co. violated the letter and spirit of the AUMF by invading Iraq as and when they did. Sen. Clinton's mistake was in trusting our President (but remember, this was only Oct '02, fairly early on in this debacle called the Bush Presidency) and trusting that the man would act honorably, in accordance with the AUMF and in the best interests of the United States.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783 and http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Posted at March 17, 2008 4:13 PM in response to Hillary Uses Iraq Speech To Hit Both McCain And Obama

Actually, this video is just a VERY SMALL part of what you need to know. The video is brief clip of a much longer speech -- Sen. Clinton's 10/10/02 floor speech on S.R. Res. 45 (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002). Read the whole speech and then read the AUMF itself (Pub. Law 107-243—OCT. 16, 2002). (Links for both below.) Then ask yourself whether or not Bush&Co. violated the letter and spirit of the AUMF by invading Iraq as and when they did. Sen. Clinton's mistake was in trusting our President (but remember, this was only Oct '02, fairly early on in this debacle called the Bush Presidency) and trusting that the man would act honorably, in accordance with the AUMF and in the best interests of the United States.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783 and http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Posted at March 17, 2008 3:59 PM in response to Hillary Uses Iraq Speech To Hit Both McCain And Obama

Actually, I think both sides are using race divisions to advance their candidate's campaign. I, too, cannot stand for it and that's why I wrote the post.

Posted at March 12, 2008 8:14 PM in response to Here's the evidence: Black voters DO provide unfair advantages in key states

Thank you for the “Well written,” DaddyD. I wrote the post not to defend or minimize Ferraro's comments, but to respond to the comments of folks (blogs, radio, TV, etc.) who are decrying and dismissing her comments as wholly racist and patently absurd ranting. I wanted to describe what I see as an element of a positive truth buried beneath, and obscured by, an arguably negative- (and even racist-) sounding statement. One can be a realist, without being a racist, and recognize that Sen. Obama is who he is and is where he is, in part, because of his race. I’m not suggesting that he's been given special privileges and advantages because he's black, but I am saying that Sen. Obama's race — his "story"as it were — is part of what made him the remarkable man he is. I'd like to think that Ferraro is a realist not a racist, but then I try to think well of everyone until they prove me wrong. Right now, that little jury sitting in my head is still out on Ferraro — though her knee-jerk, overly defensive reaction isn't making her look real good right now.

Also, I wasn't saying that Sen. Obama is where he is "only" or even “primarily” because he is black, nor was I (as has been suggested to me on another blog) dismissing his many talents, his character, his intelligence and his hard work (I cannot speak for Ferraro, however.) If that is the impression I've left with my post, let me correct that right now. Sen. Obama is a remarkable human being — remarkable precisely because of his many talents (including his oratory prowess), his character, his intelligence and his hard work. Advancement based on skin color is still the exclusive prerogative of whites — something we will outgrow some day, I hope. I simply believe that his multi-cultural heritage and his journey to find himself and his own identity are just something extra for us to respect and to admire in him. If that heritage and that journey are why we noticed Sen. Obama in the first place, fine — nothing negative about that in my opinion. I'm glad he got noticed, as only good can come from it.

Posted at March 12, 2008 8:09 PM in response to Wolfson On Ferraro's Latest: "We Have Made Clear That We Reject Her Remarks"