It's gettin' real nutso in here all of a sudden.

But I think there are also rational Democrats still shaking their heads over how the civil-rights-championing Clintons were turned into racist white scapegoats.

You BET there are!!!

Except that "shaking their heads" doesn't come close to describing it. "Still apoplectic" is more like it, for this (usually) rational Democrat. I'm 66 years old, and I have never been so angry about a political episode. That includes Clinton's impeachment, which at least wasn't perpetrated by his fellow Democrats.

I'll stop here before I say something that will make it necessary for Salon to delete my letter. Nothing I could say, however, would begin to approach the accusation of racism against the Clintons as a violation of common decency.

And with obama, it's all about the ego.

Yeah, because only humble, unassuming, unambitious, modest folks ever aspire to be President.

I find this argument as silly as trying to smear Hillary as "ambitious"...like it was a bad thing.

Big egos and ambition are both required by any that aspire that high.

Nobody ever accused the Big Dog of not having an ego, either. And he had it BEFORE he was President.

...are why Obama's candidacy has had a somewhat galvanizing effect on young voters:

"It really doesn't matter. He is the only two-term Democratic president of my lifetime."

Wow. Really? That's all that matters? Not his policies? Not his personal attributes--or lack thereof?

That is partisan madness at its finest. Anyone on this site would shake their head at a similar statment from a conservative ("well, Bush is the only two-term Republican resident of my lifetime, so I have to set him on a pedestal and worship him in perpetuity") yet I'm assuming that this statement from Joan Walsh actually sounds rational to some people.

The Clinton's and their sycophants are all about "party unity"...as long as they're controlling the party. The instant that the game stops being about personalities, and starts being about principles or ideals, we see the reaction. So much for a "nation of laws, not of men."

Shameful and infuriating.

You may be taking things a little too swiftly. Slow down.

That whole incident and the subsequent labeling was easily the most pathetic example of the mob mentality at work in the entire election. The same holds true for the "scandal" of Clinton's presidential years as well.

They don't hold a candle to the crimes against the nation being committed in the capital today. They were crimes against himself, and what he stood for, and the cost was paid by all of us when the Republicans were able to turn it into a feeding frenzy. It gives rise to thinking that you can never underestimate the capacity of Americans to forget their best interests when there is a scandal around to divert them.

I'm sure there will be plenty of the self-righteous sounding off in the thread, and Joan will be vilified for having the temerity to even bring it up. It hardly even makes sense to remind the moralists the fact that under Clinton this nation did not fight a war of domination, and it's coffer's were not ransacked. They want to lay their ideological traps and allow partisanship to destroy the party. It's irresponsible.

Obama's supporters have a lot to learn. His debt and the debt of liberalism itself to the Clinton's is the largest bill due. It's not so much about "bringing the party together" at this point but forming a new party. Watch: the Clinton's will be the first to acknowledge it and they will do it best.

It's necessary for the partisans to actually understand why the Clinton's were forced to their centrist position by the default of the liberal wing of the party. Somehow, they are to blame for it because that's what you're supposed to think about the Clinton's whether it makes sense or not--or with a broader perspective than was the legacy of the cynicism of the 60's. They're considered "beltway demons" and that's the end of it.

Obama's due is that he found and appealed to the new generation--to what idealism is left. But it's still a rocky road. We don't know yet who they are, and whether they won't come apart at the seams if their champion lets them down.

History is repeating itself, but few can see it so far.

What I am trying to say is that I believe the word "racist" applies to those who believe one race of humans is better, or worse, than another. I do not believe at all that the Clintons are racists. They do not believe whites are better than blacks, or vice versa. However, like all humans, we all react sometimes from our own history and background and say stupid things that are based upon pre-judging rather than thinking things through. That is what BC's comment was in SC. He was angry that his wife was losing, he didn't think much of Obama, and he said something to appease his own anger and to belittle Obama, and the first thing that came to mind is, "Oh, he only won here because he is the black guy, like the other black guy who won here."

I hope that explains it. Basically, he wasn't being thoughtful, he was being angry and had a knee jerk reaction based upon prejudice regarding the basis for Obama's success and appeal. I just think that he made a mistake and has been mislabeled a racist. I do believe, however, that he was trying to belittle Obama's success as being only related to his appeal as a black candidate, and that was prejudiced.

Hillary should NOT be Barack's VP. That way, when he crashes and burns like the Hindenburg this November, she will be insulated from the loss. (Oh, wait: the Obamanuts will excoriate her because she "didn't do enough" to ensure his victory.)

Although I will vote for him, I don't expect him to win. That will clear the way for Hillary in '12.

Sounds reasonable to me...