I have to disagree with the commenter earler that said something to the effect of "we hate him when he goes after our guy but love him when he goes after the other guy."

While it's true that I was in full cringe mode when Matthews took down that poor state senator from Texas, I didn't hate Matthews for doing it. That was a lesson in surrogate preparedness; this was a takedown on facts. Matthews never used Obama's guy to make the point that Obama didn't have any legislative accomplishments, just to point out that his accomplishments were not well known, even by some of those appearing on his behalf.

This was something altogether different. This was an evisceration of Bush (and James') central argument.

Though his personal animosity toward the Clintons is lamentable(and I believe he has tempered it somewhat as this campaign has gone on), I am always entertained by him. His love of the democratic process seems genuine, and I think that he's not so much a political windsock as he is a human bullshit detector.

BTW, I don't know about a speechwriter for Carter, but he was Tip O'Neill's press secretary.

We’ll take as granted the fact that this was actual reporting and not a leak, which may not be true, but if you make that assumption, this thing is interesting for a couple reasons.

First, well, of course Penn is saying she should stay in. That gravy train is probably even better than his deal working for the Colombians. But more interesting to me is that it’s Bill who is urging her to stay in, and using the same argument that they make in public. I had always assumed that they really saw the writing on the wall in private, and were going through the motions in public just in case Obama imploded, or if there was some sort of strategic advantage they knew they had in their pocket (i.e. naked pictures of 50 or so superdelegates). But now it appears (and again, this is assuming the reporting is genuine and not a controlled leak) that…well, they really believe this malarkey. They honestly believe that they have a chance to be the nominee just by saying that she’s more electable. I’m not sure if that’s comforting in a “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” way, or really disturbing that they could be so detached from reality.

Ok, you're "in it to win it," Hillary, we get it...wait, what, you really believe that? Seriously? I guess I had just thought we were playing out the string here so you could save face and not get called a quitter.

Boys are kicked off of boys teams, or asked to participate in a different league, for being "too good" all the time. Also, many pee-wee football leagues kick players out for being too big and thus unfairly affecting competition and/or posing an injury risk. This is only an issue, or at least a story, because it's a girl. Good for her for being so good, and I hope she finds an appropriate league. Maybe there's a team of 14 year olds nearby?

Every dumb-assed thing Obama says is Obama's fault, even if he didn't say it. And every dumb-assed thing Clinton says is only considered dumb-assed by the anti-Hillary media, and is also Obama's fault.

Stop it Joan, your shilling has been embarrassing for quite some time now.

So let me get this straight...

It's time for the Obama campaign to start healing the rift in the Democratic Party that has been created by...Clinton?

Why does he need to start healiing it? So she can keep picking at the scab until August? So she can keep campaigning for McCain (sorry, I mean "against Obama")?

The healing process starts when she admits the nominating process is over, not a minute before. Because I, like a lot of other Democrats, don't trust her to participate in that process. He's done nothing but praise her the last few weeks, and the thanks he gets is the suggestion he might get shot. What's next? He calls for unity and she calls him a wuss?

Mind you, she is the one who is still "fighting" here, so she is the one who needs to enact the cease fire. I don't expect him to reach out (nor do I want him to) until 5 minutes after her concession speech. She simply can not be trusted to do the honorable thing. Why this doesn't offend more people is beyond me.

I know you're being sarcastic, because I'm right there with you. The hell with this. If she's not going to recognize defeat, what good is winning?

But then I think ok, well, fine. Let's say she does "take this to the convention." Then what? She won't win an appeal of the RBC decision on MI and FL, she won't flip delegates (super or pledged), and on the first ballot, she'll lose somewhat narrowly, but convincingly. And then what? Does she sue the DNC to invalidate the convention results? Go 3rd party?

I just don't see how she thinks this could possibly end well for her. Even if she wins, if you follow her logic that the base of the losing candidate may stay home (her current argument), then she loses the African American community, they stay home, and then she's just John Kerry.

Someone needs to make this clear to her. She can't win. She just can't.

was a sarcastic SOB (meant a little bit lovingly, but not much), but I didn't think he was this mean-spirited.

I remember his comment when Bush the First chose Dan Quayle in 1988 instead of (as was widely expected) him. They asked for a comment, and Dole said "oh, I called to congratulate him, but they said he couldn't come to the phone because he was shaving. First time, apparently..."

Like I said, just a little bit lovingly...