What’s up with JC turning into a Harper apologist. He forgets to mention that Harper suppported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, refusing to call for a cease fire, that he has said anything about a Khadr, a Canadian born teenager facing US military court trial to the loud dismay of of human rights groups, that he has reversed long standing Canadian tadition of seeking clemency for those abroad who face the death penalty. Weird

Oh Please!!!!

I think the horse is already out of the barn. BHO will have to go low against Hillary, if only to show he can. That seems to be a job requirement at this point. Proves you can be trusted with a red phone.

I suspect Obama to go negative. He demanded Hil’s tax returns be released. While he’s at it he could ask the same of McCain who has also been reticent. He might also ask St. John why all those lobbyists work for him - Charlie Black?

Here’s an idea for you worrywarts that I heard from AIR AMERICA’s David Bender - their political reporter. Have Howard Dean, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy (as representatives of the superdelegates) encourage the two to compete on who is stronger against McCain and keep the neg attacks to a minumum. Penalty for avoiding this counsel? The supes will vote en mass for the other guy. I like that idea.

But in any case, I’m more than happy to remain un-associated with the Clinton family and would rather any of the above as a second cousin before I’d have Chelsea. I’ll leave that stinky crew to y’all.

And as to what Reg said… I can’t believe that any intellectually honest person believes that Clinton somehow has different instincts on foreign policy than John McCain. I see no effective difference between them, other than momentary tactical campaign positioning.

Would you like to paw through those transcripts of a few years ago when Hillary and McCain did their JOINT fact finding trip in Iraq? They were virtual Bobsey twins.

Hillary puts exactly NO more at ease than McCain on that front. You can have her.

As to Dan O: I dont know about Nader. Dont think Im going down that road. But I cant imagine myself casting a vote for Hillary Clinton. And, yes, let Obama roll out ALL the dirt if necessary.

I can’t wait until Clinton is forced to release her tax returns. It will immediately become a class project for my investigative reporting class — and for daily newspapers across the country.

RLC, are you looking forward to the disclosures about which foreign governments have given millions to Bill’s library? I certainly am. So is the RNC. Get ready to lose, amigo. LOL

No one really has the right to demand that she drop out, but the party surely has every right to demand that she not conduct her campaign in a way that damages the chances of the other candidate, who because of his lead is odds-on to head the ticket in every state. As some of the talking-heads correctly noted last night, this is what DNC chairs must do. If Howard Dean suspects that HRC and her people won’t listen to him, it is his duty to find someone to whom she will listen. Again, Mondale is the best I can think of. Jimmy Carter would be good because he could talk about the damage some of Ted Kennedy’s arguments did him in 1980, but the Clintons dislike Carter about as much as they do EMK.

Sorry, RLC - I didn’t see your post before posting htat Perlstein blog. But first of all, between those who accept democracy and those who settle for establishment fises, there is a huge fissure. Second, and more importantly, most post-80s social upheavals - the Caracazo, the Nepalese Revolution, the Intifada, start over relatively minor occurences, in comparison with vote rigging. Obama has raised people’s hopes so high that they’ll be angry as hell, and potentially revolutionary in a situation in which Hillary can use racism and cheating to win the nomination.

Hillary Kerensky!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-perlstein/some-apocalyptic-observat_b_90096.html

By all accounts, a win by Hilary–in this case that means a delegate lead–is all but impossible. Yet she soldiers on. Why? Does she want to recast the party as Nader hoped? That can’t be, since Bill already did that, this is a fait accompli–nothing left to be done there.

So really, she’s just the Nader of ambition. She soldiers on, becasue she wants to be pres and only for that reason. That’s why they run in the first place of course, but allegiance to party is generally expected to trump personal ambition. Unless you are a Clinton.

What does she hope to achieve beyond her personal wants? Nothing. And what damage will she do along the way? A lot. As people here have pointed out she has to criticize Obama to gain momentum at this point, and she’ll keep on providing fodder for the opposition, making a win over McCain that much harder.

I just hope Obama gives it right back to her. She can’t win the nomination straight up, so put her away.

Yeah - like gladiators in the coliseum.

If they campaign on chauvinism and win on it, why would anyone expect them to turn their backs on it? On the other hand, if their focus groups and polling show that they need to carefully spin the Iraq issue to avoid being seen as chauvinist, they will heed that as well once elected.

The peace movement, or people who believe in the superiority of diplomacy and “soft power” over military aggression, should know by now that simply electing a new president won’t bring a fundamental change in policy.

Bill Clinton certainly dailed down the chauvinism, but didn’t bring fundamental change because he had correctly calculated that his political survival depended on appeasing the Bubba vote. He knew that half of the American left, i.e. the Marc Coopers of the world, would never be satisfied with anyone short of The Messaiah, and the other half had either gone to sleep or fragmented into quixotic single-issue campaigns headed mostly by feckless identity seekers.

Presidential elections are fun (although this one has seems to have prompted Marc to sensationally sqaunder every shred of journalistic credibility he ever had) and we all hope for the best. But we have to remember that the ideology and personality fo the candidates is only a template through which they interpret voter sentiment. Their decisions are ultimately depend on the variable, then, which is the political wind and which way it’s blowing.

Obama moves us slightly away from this model, it seems, because his claim is that he’s actually engaging in politics, meaning he’s trying to build a new majority by power of broad-minded persuasion, rather than via small-minded marketing tactics. And there is evidence that he’s succeeding. Let’s hope so.

And…some of the wingnut blogs are crowing that their tactic of having Republicans vote for Hillary in open primaries has worked…

I see that the dreaded picture of Chicago ‘68 has been raised. Why? Where are the deep ideological fissures to create such a scenario. Unlike that year this war presents a unified voice - everyone hates it and wants out. It is John McCain who stakes all in the sands of Mesopotamia. Have we had other conventions where the outcome was unknown going in? Sure. Just about every contested one before 1976. This will be settled. Polls show the rank and file like both and probably hesitate picking because they do like them.

I’m goping to enjoy this. The Dems will have v\center stage all Spring.

Meanwhile McCain sinks into the black hole of non-storydom begun today when he accepts the fatal embrace of the Decider.

As someone said McCain reminds me of the old man who lives next door and yells at you to get off his lawn.