I was saving my Lesley Gore lyrics for just the right time, even knowing they'd be unknown to the younger set, and you used them first!

Ah, well, "it's my party and I'll cry if I want to..."

I just don't want to cry this year. Sob, sob, poor pitiful me. Much more so, poor pitiful us/US if McCain fulfills his ambition.

Each party has a somewhat caricatured vision of its political rivals. So it is no surprise that Republicans talk about the "angry left" with the same vehemence that Democrats use to describe the "religious right." Tom Rath, a New Hampshire Republican leader who was a prominent backer of Mitt Romney's, predicted that Obama would be in trouble "if there is an angry liberal tone to the convention that makes voters feel like the Democrats are out of step on the issues."

I get pissed whenever the GOP's various wingdings sound off on what the Democrats need to do, worse when that "advice" gets heeded. They aren't out to help the Democrats; they're out to destroy them. So, throw their fucking advice in the recycle bin, already.

The problem is that the "angry left" referenced isn't even left of political center -- they are a phantasm invoked by the Right, who controls the framing so much it's appalling, whereas the Religious Right actually exists as a political force, and they're skewed further to the right than is acknowledged. The GOP are the ones entirely out of step on the issues, as is show time and again by what people want for the country and its direction.

A strident liberal tone wouldn't suit Obama, but a thoughtful and sensible liberal tone would resonate with voters, just as a weakly centrist tone would weaken the Democratic candidate against McCain, by blurring the differences. I hope that Obama calls down the thunder in his speech.

Because that is the surest way to erase any Clintonian machinations at the convention -- again, if Obama doesn't stand strong as a distinctly liberal candidate, apart from conservative HR Clinton, then the competing cults of personality will reign at the convention.

I think if Obama articulated a sincere and empowering liberal agenda, Clintonites would be forced to suck it up and concede that they are, after all, not liberals, not progressives, but are simply blindly chasing after a cult of personality in HR Clinton. Or else vote for the more progressive candidate.

My worry is that, chastened by the scheming, Obama might hew toward the very unsafe center, offer a weak vision that will fail to distinguish him enough from McCain (or from Clinton) to vault over either of them.

If he's offering a politics of change, he must embrace something strongly liberal, because that's the only way to actually bring needed change in our country's direction. This is a strong political challenge for him, but one I think he's capable of making. Certainly more than HR Clinton, who will always be hobbled and compromised by her (and her husband's) connections and confederates.

You've already tried this. You've already been debunked.

You couldn't find your way out of a broom closet with a trail of breadcrumbs.

Every single quoted source in this article was a Republican campaign operative repeating their own talking points.

It doesn't dispute these talking points. It doesn't ask what agenda the GOP has in spreading them.

It's clear Republicans are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: tell the press the Clintons will hijack things and during the convention the press will say it.

It won't be true, because is a purely subjective statement. What will be true is lazy dishonest pundity - like Walter Shapiro - will create the perception by dutifully repeating it.

Intentional or not, Salon is carrying water like Gunga Din. This article is nothing but providing fodder for the comments page arguments and spreading disinformation for the GOP.

No points on the soft sell, cos all be told, your shit is old.

Few, if any, know what the Clintons are really thinking. The media doesn't really care, they are after ratings, and drama equals ratings because most Americans are really into the soap opera 'stuff' and would rather follow that than the missing M-3 numbers and rise and fall of the USD against the Euro.

It's tradition for recent presidents to speak at conventiions. So just as Obama had to let Bill Speak, Bill has to show up, whether he wants to or not. What he says, and how it is interpreted will impact his legacy. Presumably he soon lose the political spotlight, so there will be few opportunities for a mulligan.

Hillary is more of a star now than ever, and a portion of her base is still really pissed, if unable to pay off her campaign debts. She has to walk a narrow tightrope between her ambition, the wants of her base and the good of the party and this country. Just as in Bill's case, events demand Hillary at the convention.

...except Hillary. I don't even like Hillary, but Obama is a non-entity who is showing himself up as the same lying political whore as everyone else who's come down the road since WW2. No, I'm not forgetting Carter: I'd just like to.

We have something in common. I'm not voting for anybody but Tinkerbelle, and that ain't no fairy tale neither.

You'd be amazed how easy it is to pick off soft Obama supporters right now. If it's a female over 50, you can say you notice how the Obama team seems to be rubbing Hillary Clinton's face in it. If it's someone in a financial mess you talk about how untested and unpredictable Obama is and how the economy would get so much worse. If it's any undecided you talk about how brain dead voters are to get behind a celebrity candidate that has no record or accomplishment. You also tell them you just can't see Obama sitting across from Putin.

They are prime for the picking right now. We shouldn't have nominated Barack Dukakis.