@FilthyHarry - excuse me?

"I don't believe the Clintons are racists. However I and I bet a whole lotta people do believe that the Clintons were willing to be dismissive and disrespectful to black people if they thought it would help win primaries."

How in the hell would this have helped Hillary Clinton win black votes in the primaries? Do you really believe the Clintons, long known for progressive views on race, hatched a plan to conquer Obama by writing off 13 percent of the American population? Not even Dan Quayle could be that stupid.

-- KateTex

I didn't say nor do I believe the Clintons intended to be dismissive to black people. What they did, I believe was in their growing desperation and fear at the threat Obama represented to a campaign they had believed they had already won was to be dismissive of EVERYONE who voted for Obama. Several times during the campaign, they have made remarks dismissing the relevance of small states and caucus states. This of course is an insult to everyone one of those people. The MSM in its for profit motive that drives the news cycle noted that black people were a sub group of the total people that were dismissed by the Clintons and ran with it. Yeah its fucked up but but no more than the MSM's current obsession with Rev. Wright, except in this case it happened to be true that the Clintons were dismissive to a whole lot of people, and that a few poorly worded phrases really highlighted the dismissive attitude towards black people. I don't think nor did I ever say it was a strategy. Its a personality trait revealed under the stress of the campaign.

You have to admit comments about small or caucus states not counting WAS stupid for the Clinton campaign to make. Even Quayle didn't do that.

"You're conflating political experience with the ability to win a campaign."

Tell me why it's not? Do not both take intelligence, foresight, planning, strategy, and above all an knowledge of politics? What advantage is Obama using in the campaign that won't serve him well as an executive? What failings is Clinton using in the campaign that will make her a better executive?

But either way your argument falls flat. By your reasoning Clinton might make a better president than Obama, but Obama would be a better candidate against McCain than Clinton, no?

I was trying to keep the arguments sane and not mention it but I do agree your comments are plausible.

What struck me is that right now mathematically (and for some time) Clinton has been in a position where she can only win IF Obama self-destructs. IF that is the case, and every political analyst agrees that it is, IF Hillary can win ONLY if Obama self-destructs, then what does she gain by going negative? Why not run a campaign that is uplifting to both candidates? Why not run in a way that is positive to whoever wins AND whoever loses, instead of the admittedly 'kitchen sink' style HRC has been going with?

However I also believe it could just be arrogance. That would also explain the dismissive tone towards voters who voted for Obama and everything else the Clintons have done this primary. And after 8 years of Bush, I think arrogance was the LAST trait to exhibit in the Dem primary.

It was Dewey, Cheetham & Howe.

"So... how do you explain Clinton repeatedly telling her supporters that she will support Obama if he is nominated and that they should do so as well?"

Thats easy. Because she has to. She knows she'll lose too much support if she publicly hamstrings him like that. Especially ig he wins the primary. She doesn't want to end up a clip on republican attack ads, attacking the Dem nominee. Privately however she has been constantly exhorting superdels that he can't win.

Come on, for hardcore political players, trying to get your allied opponent to lose so you can have a chance the next go round isn't a hard stretch. Regan did it to Ford in '76, Ford lost to Carter, Regan whipped Carter in '80.

"hammering away on her gas-tax holiday plan, critics be damned"

Bearing in mind that these damned critics are ECONOMISTS, I'd say that reminds me an awful lot like Bush.

Unless miracles happen in ALL of the remaining primary contests, the odds of HRC winning are nil. Why pretend its a horse race?

To be sure there is a political drama being played out but it is sheer irresponsibility to behave as if rational people were unsure how this is going to play out with 99% certainty.

If you have nothing to say about the race don't waste our time pretending its a nail-biter.

The story here is NOT who will win the nomination, though of course HRC could still win, it would be irresponsible to frame the story as a horse race.

The only story is whether the drawn out primaries will or will not hurt the Dems in Nov.

When Begala dismissed a coalition of black people and the intelligentsia, he either deliberately or mistakenly left out a group that was the linchpin of Brazile's argument: The young.

To whit, the young energized new voters, who by dint of being new are unfactored by the 'machine' and who span the entire spectrum of identifiable voting groups are a demographic that will be the fulcrum upon which this election will pivot.

That being said, Begala was either just plain wrong or deliberately trying to obfuscate. So he's either stupid or an asshole.