The two bits of "advice" are separated by five months of time. In Decmeber '07 Rove tells him to essentially "man-up" and get tough on Hillary. By May '08 it is clear such tactics do more harm than good for Obama, so Rove's advice is to back down. Given that five months is half an eternity in a political race, this seems more like evolving "advice" than contradictory.

The primary tactic of the right wing in this election has been to sow confusion and discord among Democrats. Thus far, it is the only consistently successful tactic applied in this campaign. Of course, getting Democratic politicos to damage themselves through internal bickering is about as difficult as getting water to flow downhill. The poor Democratic voters, disenfranchised by their own party, suffer from such a lack of vision and leadership they are willing to look to Republicans for answers.

Two articles in as many days! You sure do post a lot when your candidate is "winning!" Well, kudos for your optimism and your attempt at fair play. It's better than one can get from 99.999% of other Clintonistas.

No all white people who support Hillary are racist.

But most of them are.

Clinton not only plays "race cards" in every electoral venue she enters, but she has also virtually promised to nuke Tehran.

Clinton's supporters, who mostly oppose the war in Iraq, don't have a problem with her hawkish rhetoric. They dismiss it as "not serious," though do not afford McCain this lenience. They look away from Clinton's radical votes on Iraq and Iran, avoid the ways in which she resembles both McCain and Bush.

For Clintonistas, though, Obama is an "unelectable" "radical" because of his black preacher. His position on both Iraq and Iran line up squarely with the majority of Americans polled. Which likely means his positions square with about 50% of Clintonistas. Yet they fear him, hate him, vilify him.

Why, I wonder?

Could it be that the Clintonista poo-poohing of their candidates determination to bomb brown people in Iraq and Iran reveals some sort of latent racism? Could this latent racism be the source of their inability to notice the "radical" Obama offers ideas and proposals which are in agreement with a majority of their party?

Joan Walsh provides the perfect example of the Clintonista. You can see the struggle in her own words (and her pained face in her ill-advised video appearances). She knows that Obama is closer to 100% agreement with her own anything that matters. But she can't get over his blackness - his "radical" preacher, his "unelectability." She knows Hillary has lied, connived, and resorted to the very same tactics which Joan Walsh and other Clintonistas opposed when used against their candidate in the past.

Joan is willing to forgive Hillary for this radical shift, this change in tone; she is even willing to overlook the fact that, in the wake of the campaign adviser fiasco, the "change in tactics" ballyhooed by Clinton and her team is an admission of previous "negative" campaigning. She happily explains away Clinton's dishonest remarks from a prepared speech.

But Joan can't get past Obama's black preacher. (And now that the GOP has an attack ad on this matter, expect a pained column from Joan next week about how this demonstrates the "problem with Obama." Expect her to say that the "radical preacher" doesn't bother her, but what about all those other Americans who it will bother. Like so many liberal racists, Joan uses her imagined opinions of other Americans to justify her own prejudices.

Sad for Joan Walsh that she lacks the inner insight to realize this about herself and set about becoming a rational person who is not driven by secret prejudices, someone who is capable of self-examination and improvement.

Sad for America that so many Democrats seem to have the same blindness.

Keep it up!

Stories such as this demonstrate the incompetence of the Bush Administration. Historically, the key problem for Palestinian leadership among Palestinian factions has been preventing civil war. The rivalry, the jockeying for position among groups like Hamas, is constant. We don't hear much about it in the US: we only hear about the one Bad Guy. We'll only be exposed to internecine rivalries when the Bad Guy We Know is challenged by a Bad Rival.

Prior to Bush Administration involvement, Hamas was set to tear itself apart, stressed by both internal disagreements and outside competition. Trying to provoke a "civil war" in this atmosphere ought to have been as difficult as promoting one in, say, Iraq. Leave it to the Bush Administration, who have demonstrated no competence in any area of government, to do what imperial powers have been trying to do for centuries in the Middle East: inspire age-old historic rivalries to join forces and unite. To quote the great philosopher B. Bunny, "What a bunch of maroons."

So many racists in this thread. So little time to rebut them.

Some white people just can't stand the idea of a black man being in a higher, better position than them. Some white people just hate uppity negroes.

Nineteen-year old trained military personnel are not "children." No one above the age of eighteen is a "child." I'm way above that age and insulted by your designation.

You've got baby on the brain, Havrilesky. A decline in intellect is common after pregnancy, they say. I'm sure you know this, but: not everyone younger than you is a child, eh?

And what age did you expect them to be? Are you so ignorant and naive of the armed services that you think everyone is 25 and up?

Man, sometimes it's damn appalling what Americans don't know about their own goddam country.

The deep racism and cynicism of Joan Walsh has never been more evident than in this piece.

I'm glad I've never paid for this rag. It would sicken me to think any of my money went to funding her hateful, bigoted crap.

God save America from people of privilege.