In 2004 like many dems I watched in awe as Barak gave the Red state/Blue state speech. My husband and I , both ardent haters of Bush, were excited to think that he was a part of the future for the Democratic party. At the time, both in our mid/late 30's we believed that he would be the candidate of 2016...not 2008 since his resume was rather slim, not unlike Bill's was when he spoke in 1980.

Bill was a successful president...like it or not. Yes he made some very poor personal choices. However, with a republican congress he created more jobs and eliminated the deficit. What took him eight years to do...took Bush and his team no time at all to undo. From someone standing on the outside, Barak (and his team)seems very dismissive of his accomplishments and quite frankly who he is.

I am willing to bet that Bill was speaking at the convention all along. I think the MSM was making "he won't be there" a story to keep all us policial junkies engaged. Bill is the only living 2 term democratic president...it is absurd to think that he would not be at the convention.

Everyday I read this blog and watch Obama supportors/non supportors...slap back and forth. I watch Jeb get hammered by a whole slew of people and I cannot understand why. We live in a country that stands for the freedom of expression. Expressing your belief in a candidate is what the founding fathers worked so hard for.

Based on where the country is right now, Barak should win this election. What history has to say about him as president is yet to be written.That said, you cannot take Bill's accomplishments then or now away from him. Making any sweeping gestures about him as a racist/or any other personal attacks is simply not fair.

He belongs in center stage at the convention. It is precisely because of him and his years as president that Democrats have any recent successes to point to (especially given the ratings of our current democratic congress).

By the end of this month, Democrats will be unified and ready for November...hopefully.

Joan,

As your colleague Tom Schaller so expertly pointed out, while the Clintons are clearly not racists, it is difficult to deny that they used race-baiting as a tactic during the Democratic campaign. I briefly noted a poster pose the question "What's wrong with" what Bill Clinton said in South Carolina. What was "wrong" with that comment was that it dismissed the Obama phenomenon as being race-driven, and ignored how important winning South Carolina was to Clinton's own run.

The Clintons made lots of statements that were, to some degree, factually true, but politically questionable, and there was, in my view and in the views of a lot of other African-Americans, sufficient evidence that the Clintons were willing to cast aside our people for the sake of winning the votes of "hard-working, White Americans." I thought a lot of you post today, particularly when you talked about how many White Liberals are sheltered from a racial perspective, and therefore may be surprised when minorities question the degree of "downness" of the White Liberal. However, the big problem I have with what you wrote is that you seem to blame the Obama campaign for casting the Clintons as racist, while ignoring, or absolving, the vast contribution that the Clintons themselves made to this depiction. You cant dismiss Obama's win in South Carolina, have one of your chief surrogates derisively call Obama "lucky to be Black", point out how your campaign has the support of "hard-working White people" and then wonder why Black people now regard you with suspicion.

...Obama doesn't "reach out," he belatedly reacts only when he's helped create another untenable situation for himself. Obama is incapable, at this point, of pulling the party together. His catharsis-dissing comment didn't help him one bit. (When he's unscripted, he's tone deaf. He lacks the ability to show compassion, IMO.)

Obama's reaching out to Bill Clinton, finding him a place at the convention, and pulling the party together after a few months in which people on both sides behaved badly, could go a long way to accomplishing the same thing. I hope it is really going to happen.

Well, Joan, just hop on that "hope" bandwagon! Hope all you want. Fulfillment of that hope is quite another kettle of fish.

"It's still fashionable to blame zealous pro-Clinton PUMAs for the schism, and call them menopausal, cranky freaks. There are a few out there. 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."

Nope. I hope he doesn't speak.

I want the delegates who were promised to Hillary to get a chance to vote for her in the convention. If the Democratic Super Delegates still want to go on record as thinking Obama is the best candidate for President, after his tacking left, right, left again ... and think that the country really IS Center LEFT, they're nuts. It's not. The rising support for off-shore drilling, and gaining momentum for some revisit to nuclear power demonstrate that if Obama really believes he can avoid doing one or both, in the next decade, he's nuts.

Drilling could be expedited as a "critical and demanding issue." Which could mean: hiring whatever staffers it takes to expedite, with prudence, environmental oversight, and speedier processing of drilling leases. In fact, the bitter truth is, while we might see some of that off-shore oil within eight years, it's not reasonable to think less than that. Even so, whether that finally amounts to say, 1 or 2 more years of American oil for our own use, it's something that every American can see as one form of "action." Nuclear power, if I'm not mistaken, has been tried by both France and perhaps Germany and Japan. They all seem to have used it wisely, carefully, and to their great advantage.

As far as I can tell, nuclear desalination is the only way to "go" when it comes to taking salt out of water. Water will be our next big problem. We are warned we'll have MORE not less sea ice melt, so why not desalinate and help replenish our supplies. Obama has said "no" to both, but the momentum of growing oil problems will push him aside.

Senator Clinton, being a moderate, won an enormous # of red "counties" that either Gore had won/Kerry had lost, or, even Gore didn't win. As such, she would have carried the day. Obama is a phony. He's just every bit as much a politician as any of the others. The Ultra Liberal Elitist wing of the Party, however, will blister him if he does NOT tack back Left on many issues. The Republicans will gain seats in House & Senate in 2010. Clinton could work with far more Republicans than Obama can, and will.

I am a man. I read that 6 out of 10 former Clintonites have switched to Obama. I read the holdouts are predominantly men. Women have let themselves down by not standing as firmly for Senator Clinton. Rationalizing their switch is a cop out. They had the strongest, most informative, most salient woman candidate for President they're likely to get for quite awhile, if Obama wins. Obama, on the other hand, is probably the only African-American to have this kind of shot. Women got the vote AFTER African-Americans. They've been treated more poorly, longer, than African-Americans.

In four years, trust me, a number of Hispanic-Americans will have begun rising through political ranks. This is the pinnacle of African-American power in the political game. After this, the Hispanic population will surpass African-Americans in political power. They will come on strong, and they already have the demographics to edge African-Americans out of the way.

Not so with women. Women could have been and still are, closer to making history, if they'll play hard ball, than African-Americans. And, Senator Clinton is no token. She's tough, intelligent, agile on her feet, informed, an far and away, a more accomplished LEGISLATOR with critical experience as a former First Lady, and, Senator, and leaves Obama in the dust on those points.

Women should stand firm. Demand that the rolls be called, and delegates stand up and state: I vote for Senator Clinton. Screw the Party unity. This is a point which needs made. I am proud to have been a male supporter of Senator Clinton. I think McCain is showing himself to be about as dynamic as lead paint drying. His sarcasm will only make him look pathetic and a sour apple. If he'd take Michael Bloomberg as his VP, I'd vote for him. McCain won't last four years. He NEEDS someone like Bloomberg, to be his #2. That would be brilliant.

At this point, I think Bloomberg and Ron Paul should both run. Obama'd win, but we'd have more legitimate choices. It's time for Coalition Government in our country. Senator Clinton will, if I am permitted, get my write in vote. I urge everyone who has had enough equivocating, to write her name in. So what if Obama wins by a smaller margin? With 13% of voters undecided, I'm not sure he WILL win. The Red State Phenomenon, which prevailed in many primaries Clinton won, won't go away. There will not be a true way to gauge honest answers to pollsters. Tom Bradley effect WILL play out nationally, perhaps 5% in many states.

Clinton can beat McCain with her eyes closed.

Women, please, stand firm. Insist Clinton get every vote she won. It will still "go" to Obama, but now is not the time to play the compliant spouse of the collective male ego of our country. Women should say: hell no, I won't roll on this one. WE have the best candidate.

LET Obamistas whine, as they will. Making Clintons out to be racists essentially made a LOT of us racists, because there was nothing either said that wasn't true. I fought for Civil Rights in the 60s (and in Vietnam), but Obama's running reveals there are plenty of African-Americans who NEVER feel they've been given enough support.

Fine.

Ignore that problem, at least for the convention and the election. Insist Clinton gets her day at the former, and a write in, on the latter. Principles mean more than winning.