This excerpt from a story in Media Matters (nonpartisan media watchdog) buttresses my argument above:

"During the January 26 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford responded to host Joe Scarborough's assertion that former President Bill Clinton is "divisive" by stating,

'You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney [Spears], he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons.

'I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him." I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger.'

As in: you sound like a real heel. Nice phraseology, love the 'shove it up yours' touch. Really reinforces your standing.

A bit more substantively: you are purposely avoiding the fact that the guy I quoted writes for Congressional Quarterly and is intimately acquainted with the workings of the political press.

Also, I heard the bit about the 3-1 media bias on All Things Considered a few weeks back - it was no big surprise and I'm looking, I'm looking.

You ask: "How would she overcome these obstacles in a general election campaign?"

By putting a contract out on selected members of the press? (heh heh)

Seriously, the media ARE her biggest obstacle. I believe the highly misleading coverage of the Clintons' 'racist' remarks led directly to Obama's subsequent wins. That's when his campaign really took off and any remaining anti-Hillary muzzles were removed. Can you understand how frustrating it is to favor Clinton but believe she absolutely can't get a fair hearing, simply because she is a Clinton (well, by marriage)? Aaarrgggh. So call me a masochist, but my support for Clinton becomes all the stronger the more she comes under attack. She IS the underdog now, but normal media underdog dynamics are not kicking in. Instead, the press just continues to kick her (apologies for the Nixonian touch).

First of all, though we diverge seriously on our candidate views, you've got one of the better screen names. And now, back to the knitty gritty (cough)....

You say:

"The costume drama was not the first time that the Clinton camp tried using the Muslim card."

Is there any proof out there, any at all, that the Clinton camp was responsible for the photo which ended up in Drudge's grubby, slippery hands? Lacking any concrete evidence, this assumption must be categorized under "attempted smear."

You say: "The only voters with whom Hillary still has a slight edge are undereducated(no college degree), over 55 blue color whites"

Can you document this? I have lots of friends, both male and female, who have at least an undergraduate degree, and a predominance of masters and PhDs. All of them are Clinton voters, complete Obama skeptics. Also, far as I know, Clinton still has the edge with white women. And though this may be accidental, your post has a ring of class prejudice to it, not to mention the usual soupcon of implied racial prejudice among blue collar whites.

You say: "I don't have anything in particular against under-educated white people except that they seem to be uncomfortable with non-white persidential candidates, and i don't see why I should accept a mentality that is basically racist, being white myself."

All I can say is shame on you, pantanal, shame on you.

You say: "Why was it OK for the Clinton camp to use racial put downs when commenting on Obama's victories, but "shameful" to denounce racial bigotry among her one remaining core voting block, under-educated whites?"

You're quite good at making unfounded assumptions. In fact, execrable in this regard.

You say: "I am convinced that KateTex expecially is a paid Clinton operative, lurking on websites"

Yes, and I'm also employed by the Mossad - in my spare time, of course.

Please explain, if you will, why moderate Republicans and Independents who voted for Bush last time around, are voting in droves for Obama - cited as most liberal senator of 2007. Clinton is actually more moderate than Obama, and does have a track record of working both sides of the aisle as senator from NY. Also, one of Bill Clinton's hallmarks was an ability to pull Democrats towards a more conservative agenda and thus avoid further erosion of the party's ranks. This should've worked in Hillary's favor, should it not?

You say: "The Clinton years sucked: they sucked for working people, period"

That's not what blue collar workers in Ohio were saying today when interviewed by public radio. Those interviewed were big Hillary Clinton supporters who said they did quite well under Bill Clinton's administration. Neither did the Clinton years suck economically for most Americans. You're pretty much denying the undeniable here.

You're my hero. Thanks for taking the time to scrutinize the chhabili diaries - it was worth it. And now back to installing the new home/car/PC alarm system...