The unfortunate comments Hillary made basically implying that one reason she was staying in the race was that anything could happen, since Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in June have not been well received.

Let's leave politics out of this discussion, but rather focus on what this does to her political career.

My feeling is that it is over. One misstatement and it's over, just that fast.

All candidates are subject to saying one thing that can bring them down. Look at Joe Biden a few years ago. I'm sure there are others I don't even remember.

Her timing was horrible. And the contrast between the two politicians is stark.

Bobbie Kennedy was so loved and rightfully so. Hillary Clinton has the highest negatives of any running politician.

It's almost as if she was baiting some kook. I wouldn't trust her as dogcatcher.

Herb

I don't know if this will end her political career, politicians have done and said probably more distasteful, damaging stuff in the past and rebounded.

The timing of her comments, plus what the Kennedy family is dealing with given Ted's cancer news, is suspect at best.

The context it was received in was sort of "Hey, I'm staying in the race. He could get assassinated at any time, then I'd have the field to myself".

I don't think that's what she meant at all. I think her train of thought was probably that historical races have been wide open as late as June, citing that Bill didn't have it until the June California primary, and that RFK was assassinated in June, so it was still open in that year also.

It was, however, a subject that should not have been brought up, period. This is going to haunt her forever.

She apparently said it not once, but twice, so unlikely it is a slip of the tongue. It's clearly one of the reasons someone like here would stay in the race, but to speak or even imply it out loud is amazing. It's obvious that this nomination is something that Hillary must have felt she had a lock on until this "Barak" guy showed up, and now her bitterness is beginning to show through.

She's clearly just lost any chance of getting a VP slot, and I believe her role in the future of the Democratic party will drop even further into the background after the convention. But her political career is not over - she is a political animal and will always be a player to some degree.

The hatred here for Hillary is amazing. People make gaffes all the time on the campaign trail - this is just one of them. Clearly Clinton was talking about the fact that other candidates such as Robert Kennedy stayed in the race through June (she also mentioned Bill Clinton). She has apologized for the misunderstanding.

No, it has not ended her political career. The remark will be forgotten in a week. She still has a good shot at VP if she wants it; if not, she'll be back in the Senate no doubt.

Andrew

I beg to differ Andrew. This is not a simple gaffe, it is a recurring theme of her campaign. Planting seeds of hatred, but not watering them does not give you clean hands. There is always the pesky matter of the facts getting in the way of her erratic rhetoric.

First of all, RFK ran in a 13 state primary. No 50 state strategy, no blue states and red states to divide and conquer, and no need to spend over 15 months on the stump. It was just 13 primaries and Kennedy launched his candidacy on March 16th of 1968. He joined the race after New Hampshire.

Second, Bill Clinton did not have to wait until June to know that it was over. On March 20, 1992, he said this to the New York Times: "I don't want to give anyone the impression that the race is over. I'm going to do my best to wage a national campaign." Tsongas had just dropped out and Brown was a long shot. Sure sounds like Barack Obama this spring, now doesn't it?

As far as the loose assassination references go, Keith Olbermann has assembled quite a batch. I will share a few from the stump. Bill Clinton used the term "hit job" in reference to Obama back in South Carolina. Francine Torge introduced Hillary Clinton to a crowd in New Hampshire and said this in her introduction, "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated."

Then there is this quote from Hillary Clinton published in Time magazine months ago, March 6th to be exact:

"TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?

CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual."

How could she have possibly been worried about Ted Kennedy and obsessing on his family back in March? She is lying again. She is making excuses. Some might say she was letting a bit of her subconscious peek out.

Like most of her worst moments on this campaign, I find it repulsive and disgusting. If she cannot run for office without making terrible lapses of judgment, I cannot trust her to run the country once in office with that same lack of tact, respect and honesty.

I am not blindly partisan. If the Democratic Party is in the market for sheeple and latent racists, they can count me out.

I don't believe that any words coming out of Hillary's mouth are accidental, and when you hear a comparison of this primary run to Bobby Kennedy's, what's your first thought? Yea, me too. She has advisors (and her own brain) to guide her on these things, and will realize how such a comment could be interpreted. Andrew, I can't give a pass to Hillary on this one... it was either unintentionally offensive and she has no sense of decorum, or she was saying something about what might happen to a nominee on the campaign trail that would give her reason to stay "in it".

But I have to agree with you - it likely will be forgotten by June 1. Such is the nature of the modern new cycle.

I don't like it. She has not done a good job with her campaign. I agree with Littlesongs as to why. There needs to be standards for this stuff and a lot of them are slipping. Obama has done a good job leading by example. Good for him.

For me it's not hatred though.

The Hilary Clinton that grew up wanting to make the world better still exists. Hard to hate that.

IMHO, she is pulling out the stops because this is likely it. Either she runs for President now, or she doesn't run period. That might not be true as lots of things can happen, but I believe she thinks it's true, and that drives a lot of this stuff.

She is basically saying somebody else is gonna have to actually take it from her, and that's how she competes in this. It's strong and brutal and perhaps she can at least make the point that women can be as strong as brutal as anybody.

Point taken, if so!

I also think that anybody with a bent toward not liking her, hating her, not voting for her, doesn't need much of an out to do so. That leaves everybody else, and in her view that's enough people to matter. It has to be, or she can't EVER be President, so she is not going to worry about that.

It will be forgotten by that group of people that might vote for her, and it likely won't by those that would not have voted no matter what, meaning it's only a gain for her and a potential loss for Obama.

To write Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political obituary is highly premature. I don't think her career is over by a long shot. She made a very inappropriate remark, and it MAY help finish her campaign for president this summer. But her campaign was clearly finished awhile ago, this just hastens it. But remember, she’s got a huge following and this summer’s convention will prove it. In real terms, she’s not all that far off in terms of total delegates than Senator Obama. To discount her would not be mindful of her popularity amongst Democrats in many key constituencies. She does very well amongst bread and butter Democrats, voters Senator Obama desperately needs in the fall election.

She’s clearly one of the brightest members of the Democratic caucus in the US Senate, and they will welcome her back with open arms. I’m mean really; she raised over a $100,000,000 in a couple of years – and it politics money means everything.

Look at what has been written about Senator Ted Kennedy of late. After he lost his bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 1980, he made a conscious decision to focus on his career in the US Senate. If she wants to leave her mark, it might be worth her while to wait for Senator Obama’s ascendency to the presidency coupled with a US House and US Senate controlled by Democrats. There, she could play a huge role in crafting legislation which could stand as law for decades – especially in a pet area of hers, health care reform.

Sorry, I still think that some of you who simply dislike or even despise Hillary Clinton are badly biased to interpret anything about her in the most negative way possible. I've seen this a lot this political season; on other forums I find a good number of Obama haters who have the same perspective on him. Everything about him is bad; everything he does just re-enforces the negative things they already believe about him. It's impossible to reason with these people (I've tried).

I don't believe Hillary is dumb enough to consciously hint that she is hoping for something bad to happen to Obama, RFK-style, even if she really did hope that (which I doubt). Even so, should Obama be suddenly out of the race for any reason, Clinton is already the de facto runner up for the nomination. Even if she dropped out a month ago and Obama dropped out/was forced out tomorrow, she would be the presumed nominee anyway. She does not need to stay in to assume that mantle.

I think it makes more sense that Clinton is staying in to keep the pressure on Obama to make her VP or give her some role in his government. The more delegates she wins (and she is still winning them even if she can't mathematically win the nomination now), the more leverage she has at the convention to lobby for VP.

Andrew

I can see where she would have this on her mind. Many things can happen between now and November. With Obama being the first black Presidential candidate to actually get the nomination, nobody knows why kind of kook might come along seeking to do harm. Candidates are hard to protect on the campaign trail. McCain could have a heart attack or stroke. Someone's plane could crash. Many things are out there that could change the dynamics happen.

The thing she made a mistake on was talking about what everyone thinks about silently.

Of course, as mentioned, only people hopelessly biased such as you, Deane, and Dems who hate Hillary automatically assume she meant what you claim she meant.

(By the way, I voted for OBAMA, but I think it's important to be fair to all the candidates.)

Andrew

She said it twice. Once now, once a month or so ago to Time magazine. It wasn't a slip of the tongue.

What is this "hopelessly biased" crap you're eluding to?

Of course her remarks are inappropriate. But in a world of inappropriate remarks by politicians of every stripe, I don't think this is going to sink her politically.

And to quote you Deane, "The thing she made a mistake on was talking about what everyone thinks about silently". I’ve given it thought – at least in terms of the creeps in this country who would want to do harm to Senator Obama or his family. There are people in this country with such deep hatred of others, based on race. We need to take the matter VERY seriously.

Even the Secret Service gave it thought. They've been providing Senator Obama and his family protection well into last year. This is remarkable given that generally, Secret Service protection of presidential candidates begins once the respective party nominees have attained the requisite number of delegates to win their respective nominations.

Deane_johnson writes:
She said it twice. Once now, once a month or so ago to Time magazine. It wasn't a slip of the tongue.

Never said it was a slip of the tongue. Her meaning was misunderstood each time she said it. Only after it was pointed out to her how what she was saying could be misinterpreted did she apologize for it.

What is this "hopelessly biased" crap you're eluding to?

Fairly self-evident, by the fact that you claim to be able to read Hillary Clinton's mind about her true intent of these remarks. Admit it, you can point out no logical reason why she would ever say she was hoping for an RFK-type of event, even if she meant it.

Instead of reading her mind, I am giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt, as is Obama. Her claimed meaning of the remarks sounds completely plausible to me.

Meanwhile, when Bush went to Israel and criticized people who wanted to meet with hostile nations as "appeasers," Obama assumed it was directed at him, since the idea of meeting with the leaders of hostile nations had been a controversial, specific debate topic between Clinton and Obama in one of their debates. You of course denied that Bush may have been talking about Obama, and Bush's advisers did, too. It was clearly an inappropriate thing to say in a foreign nation. But Bush never apologized for the remark.

Andrew

But if Bush F's something up it's okay????

Andrew, it's unusual for you to have such a screwed up viewpoint on something. You're pretty much wrong on every single thing you posted above.

Thanks, Deane. You must be starting to identify with me, since you're almost always wrong on the issues here.

Andrew

Andrew, let's start over. What did I say that was biased or incorrect?

You assumed you could read Hillary's mind, believing she really hopes for an RFK-style event this campaign and that that's why she made those comments about staying in the race. You took her comments that way because of your bias against Hillary. It's like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who automatically assume 9/11 was an inside job because of their inherent distrust of the government.

Clinton says she was talking about candidates who have stayed in the race into June. I don't know what was really on her mind, but I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, in part because making such comments willfully in the matter you imply makes no sense. As you say, she made them more than once, so it wasn't a "Freudian slip." It seems clear to me Clinton is getting desperate to explain her need to stay in the race.

Andrew

"You assumed you could read Hillary's mind, believing she really hopes for an RFK-style event this campaign and that that's why she made those comments about staying in the race."

At no point did I say this or imply it.

I don't have a bias against Hillary. I just plain think she's a devious bitch with no goal other than what suits her needs. That's not a bias, that's a totally negative opinion.

I've already said she probably meant it differently than it came out. What more can I do to agree with you?

Deane says: “...she's a devious bitch...” What kind of misogynistic statement is that? Well, I'd rather have Hillary Rodham Clinton running Washington DC any day of the week compared to that murderous George W. Bush in power. Bush, responsible for the murders of 85,000 in Iraq and hundreds of thousands injured, makes Clinton (both Clinton's for the matter) look rather a fairy-tale compared to the butcher of Crawford.

That's because you're a radical anti-American liberal, judging from your posts. You'd likely even prefer Chavez over Bush.

That the biggest GD piece of shit post I've EVER read DA and you've posted some big piece of crap here.
YOUR the biggest fascist I've ever known.

Deane, tell us what's like to be a radical anti-American conservative? That's sure what it sounds like from your attacks on good Americans like Hillary Clinton. Why don't you move to France with your pal Sarkozy?

Andrew

And Obama is responding with class. Basically, he's taking Clinton at her word, citing how much they both have endured in this race.

"You'd likely even prefer Chavez over Bush."

Touche' Deane.

You hit the mark. Just don't expect these Bush-hating leftists to ever admit it.

But I'm not sure if it's because they hate our president so much, or if it's more because they lean so far socialist.

Herb

Well, I think it's because our current President SUCKS SO HUGE that almost ANYBODY looks better by comparison.

That trite crap cuts both ways gents.

Anti-America? I love that. Very original. Sounds like the musing of another fascist, Archie Bunker. I couldn’t be more proud to be a raging liberal. And once again, it’s going to be the liberals who have to clean up after the hapless conservatives. They’ve left this county in one hell of a retched mess. As to either Chavez or Bush, neither. But with that said, the clueless Bush is regarded with contempt around the world. You may appreciate Bush’s intellectual dimwittedness and his raging naiveté, but most of the world see’s him as a fate worse than death. Too bad we didn't see it sooner.

Talpdx quoted Deane " Deane says: “...she's a devious bitch...” "

He also said, before that " I just plain think..."

That's his opinion. And just because he said it about a woman doesn't make him misogynistic. There are bitches out there. There are dicks. She's not off limits for opinions like that just because terms like " dick " don't apply to a woman.

That said, she's becoming more and more irritating to me. I glanced at a headline that said that Obama feels like Clinton is stirring up some anger. I didn't read the article, but I agree with that headline.

And Talpdx is not anti-american. There's not just one brand of patriotism. He's showing his and it's just as valid and effective as anyone else's brand.

Nobody prefers Chavez. It's silly.

Listening to the leftie talkers this weekend, including some political TV roundtable shows rife with far left Bush-hating liberals, I think Mrs. Clinton may now be toast. And over on KGO 810 AM Radio, the host was just about eaten alive by call after call after call coming in with little but anger toward Hillary Clinton.

Robert Kennedy was too good of a guy, and died so tragically. For Hillary Clinton to say what she said...well, I never thought I'd be saying this....But it may be time to bet she's no longer nationally electable.

Herbert Milhous

Frankly Herb, I think to blindly embrace the murderous ambitions of George W. Bush makes most people of goodwill cringe in disgust. You like to sell yourself as the purveyor of what is morally correct, but then you fawn all over ne’er-do-well George W. Bush and your favorite bigot with a heart of gold, Richard M. Nixon. You make me wonder about all self-righteous, self serving Christians. But then again, my dad did warn me about doing business with self-righteous, self serving Christians. They have an atelier motive. That is to steal you blind. In his case, they turned out to be the most crooked characters in 40 years of professional life. But given your role as apologist for the born-again Christian set, I’m sure you’d be the first to rationalize why honest business people shouldn’t be concerned with thieves who call Jesus their Lord and Savior.

Talpdx, you don't like anybody do you?

"..fawn all over ne’er-do-well George W. Bush.."

I hardly fawn over the guy...And Alan Keyes got my vote, not Mr. Bush, in the primary.

But even if I were to fawn over him...and I don't...tis far better to fawn than destroy my own soul with hatred toward a guy who freed millions of people.

And anyone clinging to the democrat party with their pro-abortion plank, ought to think twice before accusing others of wrongdoing.

Herb

If you mean ignorant people like you, then I do take exception.

Alan Keyes, another bigot who panders to people’s wicked side. Why is it that this carpetbagger couldn't win election as dog catcher? Given how badly this perennial candidate performs everywhere he runs, it shouldn't be any surprise that his biggest supports are religious bigots.

You know Deane; I have very honest friendships with people with a variety of political and religious beliefs. They have their opinions and I have mine. But to assume that because I find George W. Bush or GOP policies of the past several years repulsive doesn’t disqualify me from liking or not liking people. I’m going to call them like I see them. In my estimation, the Republicans have behaved like hypocrites. And I’m certainly not going to be cowed or embarrassed from stating how I feel on this medium or any medium for that matter because you don’t think I like anyone. That sounds like something a bully on a schoolyard playground would say.

I can only go by the words you post.

Deane, your recent reference to Hillary Rodham Clinton as a “bitch” speaks to the intellectual temerity of all your posts.

I have a lot of company in this opinion about Hillary.

Exactly!

I've friends that are the same way. Who we are is very different from our politics.

The nice thing about this venue is that you get to put your views out for discussion and are gonna get called on them.

If that somehow feels bad, look in the mirror, because that is exactly what conversations of this type are.

Bullying like this is only an attempt to marginalize some views that make people uncomfortable. The number one reason for this is that those views really are not all that defensible.

Rather than face that, we see the behaviors seen on the Dodge List, posted here from time to time.

Post it up, back it with solid facts and opinion and have few worries. Anything else is head games.

George W. Bush, liberator of millions. Laughable. Done at the end of a barrel of a gun of course. But Herb fails to mention the millions that have fled Iraq as a result of the US invasion.

Given Herb’s declaration of Iraq as liberated, we should lobby to get him appointed official spokesman for the Iraqi Tourism Board in the United States. He’ll call on conservatives and pro-lifers to visit those in Iraq they've helped liberate. Herb will lead tours to Sadr City, Mosel, the Al Ambar Province and points in between. Look, there’s Herb waterskiing down the Euphrates with a grenade launcher draped over his shoulder. I’m sure he'll be welcomed with open arms and a good time will be had by all.

Just don't expect these Bush-hating leftists to ever admit it.

Just as WE wouldn't expect YOU EXTREME RIGHT fascists to ever admit YOUR wrong.

Deane, you used a term that we can all agree was degrading in many ways. The obvious misogyny is there, but it insults every four footed American as well. I would not frame any politician as a dog. It is an affront to the entire Canidae family. Loyalty, intelligence and unconditional love are not universal puppy traits, but occur with far more regularity in hounds than pols.

Andrew, I like and respect you a great deal, but it doesn't always feel like a two-way street. I bear no grudge against either Clinton personally, but I also feel that it is dangerous to see them as infallible or give them the benefit of the doubt. Whenever I have questioned Clinton's motives, her tactics and her judgment, I am called a "hater" rather than a skeptic.

The Clinton brand name is just that, a brand name. It has great value in that it is recognizable to everyone. Like say -- Coca-Cola. Like Coke, it is an easy default when other choices are generic, unknown or unrecognizable. Like Coke, one feels safe making the choice with little or no knowledge of what it actually contains. This is because the brand name is perceived to be the majority choice. There is an unquestioned virtue in Clinton and Coca-Cola that is not based in fact, but in group think.

It is hard for many Democrats to swallow, but the grim reality is that Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate running a campaign that is almost entirely negative. She has hurt the party. The racial and gender divisions within the ranks have never been as apparent as they are right now. It is a shame. She could have helped heal wounds rather than inflict new ones. No politician should be rewarded for creating that kind of outcome. Her intentions are moot when the results are clear.

Beyond this election, the world continues to spin around and around. We are in a nasty, ugly pickle right now. While our current situation is due to the machinations of the latest greedy sinister group in power, the foundation was poured and set before this century even began. Was the country, on balance, better off and more secure under Clinton? YES! However, mere competence should not be our measuring stick, highest aspiration or main objective.

Hard as it is for many folks to wrap their heads around, these two families paved the way for one another. They are richer as ex-Presidents than any previous leaders -- even when adjusted for inflation. The sources of their power and financial gain are eerily similar. Where there are stark differences on the surface, with a bit of research, you will find that the policies from 1988 to 2008 are mostly a series of lateral passes heading toward the same goal line. The facts are not pretty.

Our paradigm shift away from economic stability, sane foreign policy, diplomatic strength and moral high ground did not begin with a terror attack, or this latest administration. Our civil rights being eroded by an increasingly secret government is not a new problem. Our levees, dams and bridges being ignored and putting citizens in jeopardy did not occur in a vacuum. Our partisan divisions and endless gridlock did not happen overnight. While it has become so perverted it is darkly comical, it is not a new development and to pretend it belongs solely to a single party is folly.

Using the environment, health care, Veterans, welfare, Social Security and education as political footballs -- without a second thought about what would happen to "the least of these" -- has been routine for every administration since 1980. Voting rights, the rights of women, the rights of children, the rights of homosexuals, the rights of minorities, and the civil rights of immigrants were treated as talking points and used as tools rather than addressed in a consistently constructive way by either party. Privatizing our military, contracting out our intelligence services, and grossly neglecting our infrastructure was typical bi-partisan 90s fare.

Concepts of a unitary executive, enthusiastic embrace of a "New World Order" and crippling trade imbalances were both Bush and Clinton policy platforms. Thrusting our military into the roles of policeman and publicist were tactics used extensively by both Bush and Clinton. Neglecting the bloodshed and desperate struggles of oppressed people in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, but intervening solely for economic reasons was simply routine. Special interests, lobbyists and corporate influence was a plague unleashed before either Bush or Clinton, but neither did anything to stop it.

The few paying attention were not laughing when the Clintons polarized the country, the Congress paid the price in 1994 and the nation ground to a halt. The few paying attention were not delighted by trade agreements that would destroy the American worker and our environment. The few paying attention were not amused by the endless presence of troops in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Balkans. The few paying attention were not pleased to see the free press consolidated into a handful of loud voices. The few paying attention wondered why terrorism was such a popular "new" bogeyman when it had existed in the United States since the days of the dunking stool and the hanging tree.

Meanwhile, quite a few Americans have suffered the consequences.

If it makes everybody squirm, good. We got into this mess because of blind partisanship. The only way out is to strengthen the best bi-partisan leaders and take out the trash on both sides of the aisle. The only way out is to restore our Constitution, our liberty and our justice. The only way out is to really look hard into that aforementioned mirror. The only way out is to admit the vast majority of us were wrong, learn from the past and create a better future -- together.

This is what Americans do when we grow.

Little..
YOU brought a tear to my eye!

Littlesongs, I hardly think Clinton is infallible. As I repeat, I did not vote for her. She has a lot of faults. But, there's a difference between "skepticism" and "dislike" or even hatred. You've made it clear in your posts that you intensely dislike Clinton. And you seem eager to interpret anything about her in the most negative way. I call that a bias. You might object to the word "hate" but clearly what you feel for her is far beyond "skepticism."

Consider again how reprehensible it would be to suggest that a candidate suffer the same fate as RFK. Do you truly believe Clinton meant that??? Even if she did, why would she say it more than once? It makes no sense. Once and you might call it a Freudian slip. Twice?

What makes much more sense is that Clinton is getting desperate to explain why she is in the race, and her explanations are getting harder and harder to come up with. She's running out of spin. The "other candidates like RFK didn't win until June" don't really make sense. It's sad, but perhaps she really hasn't accepted that she has lost the nomination. Or, maybe she really is angling for the VP slot. But perhaps you could try to give her the benefit of the doubt? Obama has.

Andrew

Littlesongs,

You make some very compelling arguments in your post and I agree with some of what you’ve written. But how do we go about unifying the party and bring those Democrats who voted for Senator Clinton into the Obama fold? As much as Senator Obama has invigorated the party with boundless enthusiasm, Clinton has won primaries in states where Obama absolutely needs to win if he’s to be elected president. As of today, Clinton has won 16,451,375 votes compared to Obama with 17,020,025 votes. The difference is negligible. To summarily dismiss Clinton as “damaged goods” overlooks a critical truth – she’s garnered 47.5% of the vote of those voting in Democratic primaries this year. And too, she’s raised in excess of $100,000,000 this campaign season. That’s not chump change. To ignore 47.5% of the Democratic electorate isn’t a sound strategy. If Senator Obama is to win this fall, he and his supporters need to reach out to those who are disinclined to support Senator Obama this fall and find a way to make them whole.

I was a Clinton supporter who with enthusiasm will vote for Senator Obama this fall. But I know of Democrats who feel his rhetoric of change is empty and lacks substance. It’s important that the summer/fall campaign be about unifying the party behind a substantive vision which speaks to all Democrats, not just those supporting the candidacy of Senator Obama. Most of all, we need not only a political victory this fall, but a moral one as well.

Andrew, I will admit to some bias. I have many legitimate reasons to carry this bias, but I will focus on only one:

I have a sweet little cousin. He is adorable. I have a picture of him in a fedora with a grin that makes him look more than a bit like one of my favorite composers, the legendary Perez Prado. He is smart as all heck and growing up to be an incredible young man.

Most folks have their own perspective on what this Democratic race means to America in 2008. My cousin is no exception. Obama represents something to him as a little kid that does not resonate nearly as loudly to any of the rest of us. You see, Barack could be him in a few decades.

His Mom is white and his Dad is black.

They are wonderful parents and love each other very much. Still, they have many painful things to explain to their bright young son. Our country is not nearly as accepting and warm as it promises. Some people have reasons to dislike one another that are outdated, illogical and mean spirited. Skin color still often means being left out of the dream.

It would be easier to explain things to their son without having to get into the minutiae of what a candidate or her entourage meant by "Commander in Chief threshold" or "hard working white Americans" or "electability" or "fairy tale" or "boy" or "assassinated" or a host of other insensitive and sometimes criminally negligent remarks.

They also have enough challenges as a bi-racial couple living in a small town in the south without racial arson occurring nightly on a national level. It is even harder to accept the rekindled legitimization of that climate when much of the fury originates from a so-called progressive party.

I love my cousin. So yes, I am angered by the foolish and dangerous rantings of a defeated candidate who selfishly cares far more about maintaining her own power than the dangers and everyday struggles of a genius little kid and his loving family. Does that make sense?

Nice.

My son thinks similar things. The idea that somebody Black is up there, holding the high ground and REPRESENTING is inspiring to him.

And for those, not familiar with some elements of Black culture, REPRESENTING is a lot like honoring one's family, man or woman hood, Blacks in general, nation, town, team, school.

I like that actually. More of us could use that sense of community and pride.

No matter what happens this go around, both Clinton and Obama have made history. We are, in fact, ready to move on past some very basic things.

We now could elect a Woman President. Maybe not and likely not this one, but clearly the potential is there.

And, of course, we can elect a Black looking President. Funny how the half-white thing only works when the white half is on the outside. Hmmm....

When I was a kid, these ideas were laughable. Now they are not. Damn cool man. Just damn cool.

One positive Little, is Clinton's statements will absolutely be forgotten. They reflect the struggles of the OLD Guard, of which she is a member.

In this election, that's going to change, or there will be a LOT of acting out, which will drive the change from there, ASAP.

Most of us, living at 30 or 40 something have lived our lives with this older guard running things. Many of us thought we were having good times, when really it was just a resting period, or lull.

Now, it's clear what has happened. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, CLINTON, etc... that guard may lean Republican, but it's infected both parties, the media and to some degree culture and labels.

That's going to end.

New century, new blood, new politics, maybe a new, new deal. Who knows?

I am inspired to learn that I'm somewhere in the middle. Not old enough, nor jaded enough to be unable to grok the up and comers politics and the value they bring. How they work, what they think, what that means is there, for me to incorporate into my own world view for the better.

I am also inspired by the fact that it's not a worry, but something to look forward to watching unfold!

Getting older sucks. We all know that. We worry about relevance, values, tech, and all sorts of stuff changing beyond our ability to bend with it, to follow it and somehow feel ok.

That's just not true of this pending change and for that I'm just grateful to be able to share it, work for it, and see some of the fruits that come from it.

That genius little kid is in good company, I think. He's going to follow a generation that has had enough, is smart and powerful in ways not seen earlier. It's going to be the first one that can't imagine life without the Internet, may not know what tape is, takes the need for conservation and alternatives and the planet seriously as a GIVEN, not just an OPTION.

He's going to enter a political environment that's got more tolerance and understanding than I think we've had.

Thanks Missing. You make some very excellent points and I certainly hope you are right. There is a passing of the torch, so to speak, from one generation to another. One can only hope that it is the shining torch of freedom, and not merely the torch of an angry lynch mob.

I agree that Hillary Clinton has made a good argument for a female President, but not for herself. I would hasten to add that Shirley Chisholm represented the same sort of gender and racial progress that both candidates represent today. She ran the year Clinton and her husband stumped for McGovern.

Talpdx, if I haven't thanked you for your contributions yet, I will now -- thank you. Having said that, I do take exception to a bit of the logic in your argument. I will leave the holes in your numbers alone, and focus on the idea of a "unity ticket" through extortion.

In 1984, there was a candidate who garnered only 448,070 more votes in the primary than his next closest rival. He went into the convention with only a 2.47% lead in votes, but ended up with a decisive 56.41% to 30.92% win on the floor. He did not name either of his two closest rivals as a Vice Presidential choice. One of them would have been a truly historic opportunity and either could have carried him to victory in a number of states. Instead, he chose someone who did not even run, but was viewed as equally historic to people in the party. The party assumed that pandering to gender would win the election and they lost by a landslide.

In 1988, the nominee had a much larger lead in the votes, 42.47% to 29.13%. His nearest rival could have netted him millions and millions of new voters, motivated many more millions and help to carry a number of states, but he still eschewed a truly historic opportunity. His VP choice was also not a rival. He decided to ignore the tangible strength of a fiercely loyal Democratic constituency and went for a well-respected senior Senator from the home state of the GOP candidate. The party took what they viewed to be the safe choice and lost by a landslide.

Perhaps the numbers gave it away, but the truly historic opportunity of which I speak is the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

At no point did Jackson or his campaign call for a boycott, a coup or a forced VP nod. His millions of supporters represented every color in every corner of the country. They were expected to suck it up and vote Democratic regardless of whether their candidate was marginalized or shown disrespect or withstood bigotry. Because those factors bubbled to the surface, many African-American voters did not feel welcome and did not return to the fold until 1992. All supporting evidence aside, if Jackson had painted the party as racist, they may never have returned to put Bill Clinton in the White House.

Hillary Clinton could learn a whole lot about unity, strength, grace and dignity in the face of defeat from Reverend Jesse Jackson. The times may have changed, but the party is still expected to unify without reactionary suggestions from losing candidates.

I'm not speaking about giving her a place at the table as vice-president, but rather winning over her supporters and drawing them into the Obama fold. Obama must win states that Clinton carried in the Democratic primary, including California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and perhaps even Texas. He needs to do more than pay lip service to those Democrats – and I’m sure he will. But many Clinton supporters have indicated that when asked they will not support an Obama candidacy. I strongly feel that in order to assure victory in November, you can’t alienate nearly 50 percent of those who voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. You’ve got to pull these people into the fold, sell them on Obama, his vision for the future and assure them he can lead. Plus their money helps, too.

Choosing a vice-president is a crapshoot. If acumen were any degree of certainty as to who would win the White House, then Dan Quayle would have never bested Lloyd Bentsen in 1988. Bill Clinton went with youth and experience, so it’ll be interesting to see who Obama chooses.

In the end, this campaign will be about Barack Obama and John McCain. Just think, how often do we think of the also-rans; Gary Hart, Bruce Babbitt, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Mike Gravel?

The only difference that Hillary Rodham Clinton brings to this is her VERY extensive list of donors. Even though she’s self financed (ok, borrowed from herself)to the tune of a reported $20 million dollars, she’s raised in excess of $100 million dollars. And her husband is the former president of the United States, whether it is for good or ill.

Thanks Trixter. I was hoping that libertarian folks like yourself would appreciate it, but I never expected tears.

Talpdx, forgive me for misunderstanding the thrust of your post. I would like to think that Hillary Clinton supporters have no axe to grind, but are focused on getting a Democrat into office. After all, I was a John Edwards supporter who also looked favorably on Bill Richardson. To be frank, given the facts, Barack Obama was a close third and Hillary was far down my list. I made the adjustment as my candidates dropped out one by one, studied the issues and proudly cast my ballot for Obama.

The "big state" metric is flawed. According to recent polls, Obama is winning the big states you mentioned and still very competitive in Texas.

California has Obama leading McCain:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-poll24-2008may24,0,708 8406.story
Ohio has Obama leading McCain:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/05/23/ohio-vp-matchups/
Pennsylvania has Obama leading McCain:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/pa_poll_obama_leads_mccain.html

Unfortunately, a great deal of the Clinton money is dirty. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but we are talking big defense contractors, big medicine, big media, big oil, big insurance, PACs, lobbyists, hedge funds, convicted criminals, money launderers, sweatshop owners, proxies for foreign governments and the Chinese syndicate. Lord knows what else I might find with a bit more research. With millions of small donations coming from everyday folks to the Obama campaign, the party does not need her filthy money or her little black book at all.

This is America. It is time for a candidate to run for the highest office in our country with grassroots money, good ideas, clean hands and a strong growing base of support. I think that when folks get to know Barack Obama better, especially Democrats, they will be proud to elect him as our 44th President.

"If that somehow feels bad, look in the mirror, because that is exactly what conversations of this type are. Bullying like this is only an attempt to marginalize some views that make people uncomfortable. The number one reason for this is that those views really are not all that defensible."

It's laughable. Deane calls Mrs. Clinton the equivalent of a female dog and liberals get worked up....whilst they call conservatives virtually every expletive in the book. And I should know...as a Nixon man, I recognize an expletive since I had to weed through quite a few of his 'expletive deleteds' on some of his tapes.

The bottom line is that the left has no moral high ground on name-calling. If anything, calling someone a nazi is considerably more offensive than saying someone behaves like a female dog.

Herb

Could we say that liberal extremist "invented" profanity?...especially on radio/print?

I almost never tune into KPOJ these days but I tuned by a couple of weeks ago and it did not take long...some host started his show and behold...1 minute in...GD this and that...unbelieveable!

That would have to be Mike Malloy.
The Liberal equivalent of Michael (Weiner) Savage.

I never listen to either he or Randi Rhodes anymore, for that reason.

Try Thomm Hartmann.

I stopped listening to talk radio of any kind years ago. Neither one seemed all that constructive and questionable as entertainment.

I have better things to do with my listening choices: Silence being one of them.

Oh Herb’s at it again. Herb, our very own paragon of virtue. Perhaps a sainthood is in order for Herb? A holy day of obligation in St. Herb’s honor? St. Herb, patron saint of religious hypocrites. Here he goes again, speaking out of both sides of his mouth. St. Herb would never make aspersions on anyone’s credibility – except the left of course. When someone disagrees with Saint Herb, especially a "leftist", he likes to call them a supporter of NAMBLA, code for “he's a child molester”. I only hope that those who have suffered at the hands of a child molester can forgive St. Herb for this brazen act of betraying their plight. Suffer the little children, as long as Saint Herb can make his point.

Littlesongs,

I like your idealism; I just hope that supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton can embrace Senator Obama with your enthusiasm.

Talpdx, I think they will.

After all, Obama is not a bad choice. In fact, he's quite a good one and he's played very fair ball, leaving almost no outs for those just wanting to hold a grudge.

Once he has the nomination, the Clinton's and their supporters will go through the five stages, then consider the end game: McCain and what that means.

Some of them won't get there, and will do what they do, but a whole lot of them will, and that will be enough.