Here, Here!!!

I totally agree! I get the feeling Obama will never have to worry about a legacy. Having a legacy means you've actually been in the driver seat, you've actually proven you can lead, after ofcourse, you've been elected! Hello, Obamatrons, your guy isn't in there yet. He may need a little help in the meanwhile. Especially from someone who already knows how to win.

In this disco inferno.

Joan I too am happy the Clintons are going to be involved prominently in the convention as they are still a big part the success of the Democratic party in the last two decades. And I do feel it was wrong for anyone to have called Bill Clinton a racist - although some of his statements if not racist were probably meant to marginalize the success of Obama. However I remember Clinton admonishing Obama during the campaign to toughen up; and Carville telling OBama to have Hillary's cajones. So I think it's time for the Clintons to get over any perceived mistreatment. I don't recall the Clintons jumping to Obama's defense during the Wright saga (in fact if I recall Clinton surrogates were marketing the story around); Clinton seized on every Obama misstatement - which wasn't necessarily a bad move since she almost salvaged her campaign to win.

But it's think ridiculous for Clinton supporters to have expected Obama to continuosly come to the defense of the Clintons when his surrogates were doing exactly the same as the Clinton supporters. That's what happens in campaigns - which is what BIll Clinton said every time he or Hillary went over the top. THe reason Hillary Clinton can't be VP is because of the ads the Republicans are running now - where she stood by and pretty much endorsed McCain. No candidate in their right mind could choose a VP who had done that.

And at some point I would like to see Hillary Clinton take a risky stand regarding sexism the same as Obama has done on race. She needs to get beyond the "I'm making the dreams of little girls come true" and address the schism that exists among women that causes alot of the stalling on equality - women who choose to be secondary to their husbands or men or anyone because of their social or religous upbringing; how better to balance work and family so that it's accepted in the workplace but also among women (who continue to harshly judge each other on choices); issues that go beyond generalizations. Shouldn't Hillary be jumping on McCain's inability to answer the question of why viagra is covered by insurance and not birth control pills? I would love to hear Hillary Clinton explain why she, as a successful, intelligent woman, has chosen to enable a man who despite his many great qualities is the prototype of a sexist - and how it's not just TV pundits who enable sexism. I think it's easy to find examples of racism, sexism and prejudice - but much harder to come up with concrete solutions to the problems beyond sound bytes. And hopefully the Clintons will use their opportunity at the convention to put forth new ideas and not continue to dwell in the past that ultimately cost Hillary the election.

Let's look at things this way (and I haven't read all the letters so maybe my proposal has been already thrashed out, in which case I apologize. Let's grant that the Clintons are not racists, they do not believe that those without white skins are inherently inferior to those with white skins, who therefore deserve whatever is happeneing to then and who ought to sit at the back of the bus. Let's grant this and it seems only too plausible. But this doesn't mean that they have not be willing, they or their surrogates, to make remarks that inject race into the campaign and which trade on Hillary Clinton's white skin privileges. That they have been prepared to do this, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT RACISTS, seems inherently unattractive. And it seems equally unattractive for they or their defenders, to defend their behavior, by pointing out they are not racists.

I just wanted to say that I really liked your post. You made some good points, particularly the key one, which is that we need to all come together.

Bill Clinton shouldn't be part of the equation because he simply represents the worst part of the Democratic party - the part that at one time I had sincere hopes that Obama would move us away from.

Obama blew that chance and continues, and as he and the party continue the failed strategy of carrying the mantle of Repiblican Lite, Dems are going to lose.

The only polls that matter are the elections. In the three special elections that have been held for Congress since 2006, ALL were running farther left, and they were successful.

Obama's embrace of the DLC with FISA, OFBI, offshore drilling - is bringing us once again to a tight race, not, as many have said, that he's so far "left." The simple truth is that what Obama squandered with his FISA flip flop was the main thing he had going for him: character. As he breaks more and more promises and becomes more and more like the other guy, there is less reason to vote for him.

The Clintons as the architects of republican lite are the worst thing the dems can do for the party and chances of Obama's election.

If Bush gets savvy and starts bringing the troops home, (look it up, it might be happening) exactly what makes him different from the other idiot, aside from the fact that he enderaingly calls women "sweetie" instead of "cunt" like his opponent?

His policies will clearly be so pro corporate and anti-freedom, the difference will be negligible. Just like the Clinton years.

Re: "WHO exactly has called Bill Clinton a racist? No one credible as far as I've seen. Certainly no official surrogates."

Oh please. Go back and read comments from Rep. James Clyburn and Donna Brazile right before and after the South Carolina primary. They even called Hillary a racist for saying that LBJ signed the civil rights bill.