I've got a really horrible feeling about this. The fact that Barry is making these apologetic noises suggests to me that he feels it too.

Posted at April 12, 2008 7:07 PM in response to Obama: "I Deeply Regret" Offending Anyone

Is it too much to hope that this swing in public opinion will carry over to Pennsylvania?

This thing could be over real fast if Obama pulls an upset there.

Posted at March 30, 2008 2:39 PM in response to Gallup: Obama Ahead Of Hillary By 10 Points

I'm liking the scenario whereby this all wraps up around May 6 or shortly thereafter -- right after North Carolina and Indiana have cancelled out whatever modest gains Clinton may have eked out in Pennsylvania. At that point, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine the remaining uncommitted heavyweights -- mostly notably Gore and Edwards -- throwing their weight behind the inevitable nominee in the interests of party unity, and the rest of the superdels seizing the opportunity to follow.

Failing that, I guess the next best hope is that, as oxfdblue has suggested, Hillary just comes to seem increasingly irrelevant. But that will still leave her diehard supporters pretty angry in August.

Posted at March 28, 2008 11:33 AM in response to Report: Hillary Won't Quit Race

Could somebody -- ideally a Clintonista -- please explain how the "traitor" applies here?

I think I get what "traitor" means. It's somebody who betrays somebody or something -- a nation, an army, a friend, a team, a spouse, or something like that.

So how does this apply to Richardson? Are we truly to believe that, having been appointed (twice) to public office by a certain president, he is henceforth obligated to loyally support all the members of that president's family, for any office in the land, under any and all circumstances, regardless of what other candidates might be running, and irrespective of his judgment of where the best interests of the United States lie? Is that really how the American political system is supposed to work?

To me, this sounds like something other than an advanced democracy. Rule-by-family-loyalty is the ethic of, among other things, the Mafia. Isn't it?

And if I'm wrong -- if that's NOT what the Clinton side is arguing -- then what exactly is Richardson a "traitor" to?

Somebody please enlighten me.

Posted at March 22, 2008 2:48 PM in response to Updates On The Richardson Endorsement

There seems to be a weird sort of doublethink at work among the pro-Hillary faction, at least in this thread.

You remember how, in Orwell's original usage, doublethink refers to the ability to maintain two completely contradictory ideas in the mind at the same time? Well...

#1. Obama has only made this far BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.

#2. Obama doesn't have a chance to get elected BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.

And not only that. But Gerry has been trying to tell us BOTH OF THESE THINGS AT ONCE. And they're both true!! Despite the fact that they mean opposite things.

But we just won't listen!! So we deserve to lose, and that'll show us.

And by the way, we ought to be thanking her.

Posted at March 12, 2008 6:26 PM in response to Ferraro Resigns From The Clinton Campaign

I agree with AliceG: These are great ads for Obama. I was getting nervous seeing headlines to the effect of "Candidates Slug It Out Over National Security in Final Push." But these ads play to Barack's strength as an inspiring, forward-looking, natural-seeming person.

The Hillary ad I cannot objectively judge. I know this is personal, but I just can't look at something like this without thinking how hard she is pandering. That's probably unfair -- for all I know, she probably does have a sincere and long-standing concern for issues affecting Latinos. I still want to like Hillary -- and I'd certainly support her if she somehow won the nomination -- but I just find her hard to take these days.

Posted at March 2, 2008 8:31 AM in response to Obama Running New Ads In Texas

I think it can also be said that Barack has never twisted or distorted any of Hillary's statements, or her record as a whole.

In contrast, the Clintons just will not let go of this one remark that Obama made in 1994, which they insist upon misconstruing as support for Bush's war policy. As with so many other matters, large and small, this is the kind of thing one expects from Republicans.

Yeah, I know, electoral politics is a rough game, and the Clintons are fighters, and maybe that's a good thing in some ways. But Barack isn't playing the game that way, and he's winning anyway (I hope).

Posted at March 1, 2008 2:28 PM in response to Game On! Obama And Hillary To Trade Blows Over National Security In Speeches Today

Much as I hate to disagree with anyone called Moose ... I don't think we can pounce upon one (1) article from one (1) news sourse, and announce, "Aha! Now the MSM has decided...!"

The AP alone employs many, many journalists, SOME of whom have been writing some pretty good stuff lately. I haven't seen the article in question.

This tendency to talk about "the MSM" or "the media" or "the corporate media" as if this were some monolithic entity being managed from a single control room ... it just seems more like the Paultard Weltanschauung than a realistic view of a complex (though admittedly frustrating) situation.

Posted at February 26, 2008 11:02 AM in response to Report: Obama Short On Foreign Policy Experience

Maybe what we're seeing here -- and have been seeing for the past couple of weeks -- is the movement of Party Elders (slow and stately as befits such gray eminences) to throw their weight behind the presumptive nominee. Maybe it's not even Obama so much as the goal of party unity, so as to be able to win in November. In any case, it's a good thing.

As to Edwards ... I've always been on Obamaphile, but I can't buy into a theory that makes Edwards into some kind of villain. More likely, I think, he is following the lead of Al Gore and other party leaders who are keeping themselves neutral so as to be able to credibly serve as impartial arbiters in case some kind of deadlock needs to be broken. This is a responsible position, I think -- as is Dodd's decision to endorse. Anyway, as TooBubba notes, Obama probably doesn't need Edwards's endorsement so much anymore.

Both of these things look positive to me. As long as we don't see superdelegates joining Hillary in clamoring to seat Florida and Michigan, I'm not too worried.

I'll feel better in a week, though. I hope.

Posted at February 26, 2008 9:45 AM in response to Dodd Endorsing Obama

jgringer wrote: "I'm a little scared what Hillary is going to show up at the next debate...."

This is a fascinating thing. I can't remember a time in national politics when one of the candidates became so ... choose your adjective ... unpredictable, erratic, changeable, unhinged.

It adds a while new dimension to the contest. Who is Hillary today? I can't help thinking that Barack, by simply being steady and consistent, is looking more presidential all the time.

It's hard to resist getting all psychobabbly about this.

Posted at February 25, 2008 7:43 AM in response to Hillary Mocks Obama At Campaign Rally