Yeah, that IS the funniest video I've seen of Clinton "rap". I like her fighting with Bill over the phone. And the "Barry, Barry, I love your words but you're gonna have to wait your turn"

But on the sort of serious side, I think your weirdness brings up some interesting thoughts about why stuff like the nutcracker that wouldn't be seen a sort of a compliment in the first place - and I'm saying that because I certainly didn't see it. But now that I think about it, there's something actually fairly intriguing about how that's disseminated culturally.

I mean I'm fairly sure that who created it thought it was insulting - and it is. But on the other hand - it's a fantastic and funny statement about Clinton. It cracks me up now.

Just like "Bitch" is both good and bad. But, I think it's only recently that has come across that way.

THANK YOU! That was the most enlightening read I seen in a long, long, long time. Good enough to quote:

'And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

...Looking back at history, it's hard to find evidence of the same media response to Ronald Reagan's failed 1976 presidential campaign. Taking on President Gerald Ford, Reagan lost more primaries than he won, and Ford won a plurality of the popular vote, but neither man had enough delegates to secure the nomination. So the campaign went to the GOP convention, where Ford prevailed. The bitter battle did nothing to damage Reagan's reputation (in fact, it did quite the opposite), in part because the media did not collectively suggest the candidate was acting selfishly or irrationally. Instead, Reagan walked away with a reputation as a resilient fighter who stood up for his conservative values.

And what about Sen. Ted Kennedy's doomed run in 1980? He trailed President Jimmy Carter by more than 750 delegates at the end of the primary season and insisted on fighting all the way to the convention, where he tried to get committed Carter delegates to switch their allegiance. The press did not spend months during the primary season ridiculing Kennedy, in a deeply personal tone, for remaining in the race.

And what about Gary Hart in 1984? He and Walter Mondale split the season's primaries and caucuses evenly, and neither had the 2,023 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Superdelegates eventually determined the winner. (Sound familiar?) Mondale had many of them locked up even before the campaign season began, so after the final primary between Mondale and Hart was complete, it was obvious that Mondale was going to be the nominee because Hart could not persuade enough superdelegates to change their mind and support him. '

It angers me even more when I read this and the bullshit crap that Clinton has had to face! She has EVERY DAMN right to continue to the convention. To suggest that she is someway damaging the party is pure arrogant bullshit.

I think, in reference to katetex post, that perhaps because both Huckabee and Romney bowed out early and that if they hadn't that there wouldn't be this pressure on Clinton to bow out. If one of them were still running, there would be precedent in the present now for it.

And, @lateagain, oddly enough when I only read about Huckabee I couldn't stand him. When I saw him talk and when I saw him on SNL, I thought he was really rather funny and charming, amazingly enough.

I personally think that the pressure from the MSM for Clinton to drop out is due to journalists who and have been transformed into pundits and are in competition with bloggers who don't have ethical standards (i.e., Journalists are now sold as "personalities"). Many bloggers are intimidating and use intimidating tactics and that has "spilled over" to the MSM. That intimidation is now okay even within the MSM.

Another piece of that is because Clinton is a woman and Obama is black, there is the cultural question as to what weighs more, race or gender politics. All of these combined have created this unprecedented campaign and the way that it's being played out.

Sorry, no one has had this conversation before, at least not with me.

And maybe you ought to read the WHOLE article before you make your claims. There's a whole history there that has NOTHING to do with losing the national because either party fights until the convention. That means nothing. That's actually what the convention was originally for if you go and study your democracy in America.

The idea that a nominee fighting until the convention is damaging the party is myth fabricated by Obama supporters to intimidate Clinton but more important to intimidate the voters. It's self-serving fear-mongering at it's worst. It's antithetical to democracy at it's core. And it's dead wrong in it's thesis!