Substitute "Clinton" for "Obama" in this paragraph (and vice versa, and other appropriate changes), and see if it actually changes anything for you.

This doesn't bode well for Democrats. People have decided who they like - and it isn't Obama. A lot of Clinton Dems are planning on sitting out this election or voting for McCain, because they simply don't like Obama's politics. Moderates never did like him. They think he's too young and too arrogant. People expect their candidates to at least try to fake humble, and Obama doesn't do this well. He chose to use a divisive strategy to win the primary, and it worked. Now he has to try to heal some deep wounds before the general election - at the same time as he fends off right wing attacks. Calling McCain a racist won't work - people are onto that trick. McCain is well-liked among moderates, Obama isn't. This election was ours to lose - and we have pretty much ensured that we will lose it.

"Clinton did not run a particularly divisive campaign."

If this were true, why would Clinton supporters want to sit home rather than come out and vote for the Democratic nominee? Clinton has run a hugely divisive campaign, choosing not to run against McCain but against Obama. It hasn't been a "racist" campaign--it's been a race-baiting campaign. Clinton has come close to descending into out-and-out racism, but thank god, we've been spared that--although it's arguable.

The notion that "experience" will pay off this election year has already been discredited. Where is McCain experienced? With, say, savings and loans? With bedding blonde lobbyists? With saying one thing, calling it straight talk, and then repudiating it?

The national campaign has not yet begun. If Senator Clinton had the necessary intestinal fortitude, she'd get out of the way (before she gets run over) and throw her weight behind the nominee.

It won't be a cakewalk. Even when Obama wins, we'll still have to govern. We need people to get behind the nominee, then to get behind the President, and see that democracy makes a comeback, and that fear strikes out.

I keep thinking that this head would be better if titled:

Rove's Maps...etc.

But this is Salon, isn't it?

It's a lovely piece. Thanks to Citizen X for allowing us to take a look at it. It does just what public sculpture in this day and age should do, especially when it concerns a figure and a movement who, in their day, were quite controversial. Let's all take a second and remember that King was shot down for daring to speak truth to power, that the civil rights workers were lynched, attacked, fire-hosed, beaten for their beliefs. But they, and the movement in history they represented, are the granite from which King emerges.

Now: I watched the video thinking to get what I didn't get from the piece: a glimpse of the image. Why not? Rookie error.

So I watched the video, and found nothing in it that wasn't in the written piece. Was this for the illiterates surfing the Web (a joke son a joke boy a joke I say). Why bother with a video which adds nothing, does nothing new? Why dis print, Alex, by providing a video that repeats the same phrases?

Does your mother want to see if you're eating enough?

It'll be Obama-Webb in November, mark my words. And a great ticket, too!

Obama-Webb '08

vs.

McCain-Lieberman 1808

What was referenced by Senator Clinton was not RFK's campaign, nor the 1968 primary itself, but his assassination.

If she had but said, "My husband's campaign ran through June, as did Bobby Kennedy's," then, no harm, no foul.

But she didn't reference the campaign. She referenced the killing.

So either she made a very stupid mistake, or she said what she said deliberately. Some have argued that she was exhausted, and made a huge mistake--what, then, would she do, exhausted, when that 3 AM phone call comes through?

And if she said what she said deliberately, invoking the assassination (certainly not in hope of seeing another assassination realized!) for political effect, then what does it say about her? Certainly nothing at all good.

No matter how the Clinton camp spins it, this is a terrible moment in her campaign.

What I find interesting is that Salon asks questions about Obama and white racists (gee, did you ever think they'd vote for Obama?) rather than giving this story any play at all on their front page.

But we must not question Ms. Walsh's "integrity."

"RFK says Obamapaths are unhinged"

This is what is technically known as a "lie."

"this "lie" about Clinton."

The videotape doesn't lie. She either made a foolish mistake, or she was...well, I prefer not to speculate what she might have been doing. Let's call it a foolish mistake--from one of the supposed smartest people in the world.

Clinton supporters still don't get it--if they're really Clinton supporters (I mean, c'mon). Obama supporters would, for the vast majority, vote for Clinton over McCain, if it came to that. It's the Clinton supporters who, in their vast disappointment, have pledged repeatedly to vote for more war and death in the form of McCain. It's the Clinton supporters, like Joan "Integrity" Walsh, who apologize and explain away her candidate's mistakes and, well, lies.

The hysteria and the vitriol comes from Clinton supporters, on a 10:1 ratio. Every once in a while there's a foolish Obama supporter, but nothing like the pure white froth that spews from so many of the Clinton supporters.

It's a very sad spectacle, really.