If Clinton could continue her campaign without resorting to gutter politics, Joan's analysis might be sound.

But the very premise, as stated in that quote she supplies at the bottom, is "provided the campaign doesn't become nastier."

Now, as I see it, before the kitchen-sink strategy, goodwill was high, many were talking about "two great candidates" and about how whoever wins, it will be a banner year for Democrats, etc.

But Clinton decided the only way she could gain ground was to go kitchen-sink negative.

The 3am spot was the chief symbol of this strategy, and it probably worked.

But it didn't work enough, because she's still considerably behind.

She needs to win landslides from here on out and evidently the only way that will happen is if she discredits Obama as a candidate (kitchen sink?) and even as a human being (knee-cap?).

In other words, if Clinton were just lingering around and staying on message, Joan's analysis might be plausible.

But she's not. She's poisoning the well.

And she'll poison the well until she's compelled to stop.

What's her name was correct, she is a monster and she will stoop to anything.

Powers, that's her name.

I can hardly wait to see what her next move will be.

Or, perhaps she has another strategy, a more honorable strategy to bring about the landslides she needs?

I campaigned for Dukakis in 1988 at the age of 15.

I sat out the 1990s, disgusted by Clinton's doing the Republicans' work for them.

I campaigned actively for Nader in 2000.

I caucused for Dean and voted for Kerry in 2004.

I will not vote for McCain, but I can't see myself voting for Clinton, should she somehow pull this off.

If she does, I don't know whom I'll vote for, but it nearly certainly won't be her.

WES, I conflated your comment and RbL's in my head.

That's why that last comment came out of left field.

"So In Other Words

You've supported and or voted for democratic losers the whole way. Other than Clinton victories which you sat out."

Your point being...?

Thanks, Rbl. There certainly is no shortage of vitriol around here and I often wonder the same thing: whence all the acrimony?

It's almost as if politics is just a pretext for misanthropy.

Truth to tell, I'd suggest that characterizes the Bush ethos and to a lesser extent, that of the Clintons.

A wise woman, a 26 year old singer once commented that there are two ways to be in this world. There's no "good and evil," she mused, but only "open and closed."

For what it's worth.

Thanks for the guidance, guys/gals. I'm still feeling my way around...

Thank you, Hankster, I do truly want to know.

"I f weeping for brunhulde truly wants to know what supporters of Senator Clinton think, they think Obama tells people what they want to hear about student loans etc.,"

In other words you're suggesting he's pandering and is disingenuous about what he plans to do? Do you have evidence for that?

"has no experience in Government,"

This is technically a lie. Maybe elaborate on what you mean here.

"a fact that students, who also have no life experience yet, don't put a great deal of store by."

What do students and their life experience have to do with anything?

"That is why I'm voting for Hillary."

Can you elaborate? As presented, your case seems pretty weak. I can't imagine there's not more to it than that.

Cheers. And here, take a handkerchief from me and brush off the dirt.

The last thing we (or at least I) want is to become like Clinton, so victimized by outlandish and vicious attacks that over the years, she's become expert at same.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Say no to siege mentality!

(Ok, stop me before I turn into a slogan machine.)

Well said.

There's a film about that, isn't there?: "Is Paris Burning?"

Well said.

There's a film about that, isn't there?: "Is Paris Burning?"

"Why is the Clinton Campaign using the right-wing echo chamber - indeed the very same conspiracy-minded paranoiacs that were once the bêtes noires of the Democratic party - to inflict damage on her Democratic counterpart?

What exactly is going on here?"

As I see it, Clinton is a textbook case of becoming what you oppose.

Stockholm syndrome, maybe?

No, probably not that, exactly, but something about learning all too well the tactics employed against them, mastering those tactics, and using them in a desperate campaign whose chief goal seems increasingly to be personal (political) survival.

And Brutus is an honorable man.

What?

Thank you.

Any insight into the business about not having been noticed by the editors? I didn't understand that reference.

"Actually, in point of fact, NONE of the candidates have experience in running a government, like a governor would do. They ALL have experience in the legislature side but NO experience in the executive matters of government.

So I think you're both right."

Right, but I think the initial claim was more broad, "experience in" government, not experience running a government, iirc.

But yes, we are in agreement.

Actually, I think America does and it doesn't.

It has a short-term memory as far as matters of genuine consequence (e.g., the lessons of jingoism as learned in the rush to war or the consequences of "journalists" who refuse to practice journalism, again, as in the war, etc.), but they'll remember ugliness, negative images, scandals, etc. to their graves.

So much the worse for the republic.

Ah, thanks, Fester!

That's what those stars mean!

Star-bellied sneetch, indeed. :)

(My kid just made reference to that story the other day, when we were talking about something or other with him...racism, maybe.)