That is surely the motive of Scaife, and it’s the wish of every Republican who draws a breath and has vital signs enough to show up on your TV or in any other availab le media. They want her to win the nomination because she is much easier to run against and is a more powerful vote draw for them than McCain. Hands down.

When HRC ‘compromises’ with Sam Brownback, or Rupert Murdoch and his minions, or Scaife, I am aware one could see it as a sign of political wiliness. As I said above, in my own personal journey with the Clintons, I came to see it as a sign of emptiness.

This is where we are in the Democratic party, and why the race between BO and HRC is in fact one of such political substance. HRC is closely tied to the old democratic machine, as exemplified by Murtha and Rendell. She is tied to small groups of high-rolling donors, as exmplified by the cabal that threatened to withdraw their support from the Dem party if she’s not the nominee.

This is the democratic party that “compromised” on Iran Contra and Regime Change.

It’s reasonable to say ‘this is reality’ and that BO’s promise of ‘Change’ is merely empty rhetoric. I agree with EW, that it’s really important to have that conversation civilly.

But look what BO has done. He has inspired millions of ‘little people’ to donate, setting up a huge revenue stream that’s outside K street.

That for me is a sign that change IS possible.

I’m merely pointing out that they’re being pragmatic, and as far as we know they didn’t offer Scaife any ‘deals’. If he’s finally coming around to noticing that Bu$hCo is a criminal outfit then why kick sand in his face?

They aren’t going to change Scaife, and he isn’t going to change them.
But would you have the Clintons be as intransigent and unreasonable as GWBush?
I certainly hope that I’m reading you incorrectly.

I just was reacting to this huge volume of outrage, that you see reems of at FDL and all over the web about how Clinton has been beaten up, victimized, and mysoginized from Day 15 years ago and Day One f this campaign, that I have never thought was warranted. You could call me perpetually blind to mysoginy, but I really doubt that.

The outrage manifests itself at FDL but the repetitive, excessive, and frankly childish ranting that KO and several other on the air personalities are reprehensible worthless “sonofabitches” and what it gets down to is they wouldn’t be if they didn’t criticize Clinton for tangible scorched earth attacks that are often false that she could have avoided but believes will defeat her opponent.

And what’s funny to me is that the reams of comments that KO is excrement because he dared to point out something that might be true about someone and show clips that underscores the truth about what he says that CBS first showed, is tolerated, even welcomed. But any comment there that says “hey wait a minute” the comments about Bosnia and their extrapolation as experience that’s substantive are just not true is deemed over the line or not tolerated.

I didn’t even see an apology for Bmaz or didn’t even think one was necessary. If you say one is up there in the comments it is. Bmaz has used that line before, but I think he was using it to simply emphasize a bit sarcastically but in no way that really would offend anyone, that in his mind a lot of people who support Obama worship the ground he walks on–not true and demonize Hillary. A lot of people prefer him over her for their own reasons, and you hardly need me to point that out.

What I meant though is that I understand that

1) You correctly don’t want the pissing contests about candidates here

2) There is frankly a lot of junk that FDL has deteriorated into as to the proportion of comments that you never see here (and I think everyone understands the content I refer to–it was the subject of many commenters the day that you switched from the old format to this one here but I’d have to look it up–)and I know you don’t want that.

But what’s difficult for me is that while I understand you don’t want the primary discussed here in terms of specifics on the candidates (I think) or possibly period a thread like this one opens up.

Someone starts saying that KO is trashing Clinton and it seems to someone else (me) that he’s merely underscoring what she said and did for what it’s worth, and butressing it with clips that one could consider evidence.

So I was trying to point out that (and yes I admire KO more for what he’s done with that show than all his sports work)it just seems to me that the problem is not with KO but with Senator Clinton who did the things that KO is merely reporting with clips rather than slanting to bash one candidate or another.

More importantly, the point is this blog doesn’t blog on primary, per se (except for my rants on the clusterfuck, which thanks to the unworkability of any solution, I can continue). So the long threads dedicated to it are really uncalled for.

I do understand this Marcy, and always welcome your comments on any aspect of the primary. Michigan is special coming from you because you have been deeply involved there and are such a prescient observer.

I’m sorry about the situation in Michigan, and I’m sorry that so many people like you who are in Michigan and are so well informed and invested in electing a candidate have been put in this unusual position. I do believe that there was an agreement, and that’s the end of it as far as delegates before a candidate is named for the general. I also believe that people like Dingell, the union leader, Granholm, Levin and others who have been named as principles early on in moving Michigan up are supremely disingenuous having been explicitly told what happened, dissing it and showcasing their dissing, and now wailing to the rooftops that it isn’t fair for their voters after they screwed the voters and no one else did. Obama isn’t and didn’t screw the voters in Michigan and Florida. Democratic politicians who are very prominent did in both states–elected and non-elected personalities.

I think that after the candidate is named, Michigan and Florida delegates will be able to be seated. I don’t think that Clinton’s going to the credentials committee with her argument that she is now concerned for Florida and Michigan when she was a party to the 4 state proferred agreement is going to change this, and of course I could be completely all wet, have been, and will be many times.

I must say I find Granholm and her group’s going to the credentials committe as they say they will do the most blatant form of crybabying in that they knew what they were doing to all the voters in Michigan, and were told explicitly that they were taking their ability to vote away, and they said “screw it” thinking they could come back later and put the toothpaste in the tube or “unscrewing it.”

But then he apologized. On his own.

That’s a tremendous difference, and one that is critical to maintaining the civility of this blog.

More importantly, the point is this blog doesn’t blog on primary, per se (except for my rants on the clusterfuck, which thanks to the unworkability of any solution, I can continue). So the long threads dedicated to it are really uncalled for.

I have the most difficulty with tone (mine) since it doesn’t seem to be different from the tone that others have used though. I can make substantive criticisms when I need to, but I don’t know how you can respond accurately to things that have been said by a candidate when they have been personal attacks on another one and not butressed by facts.

Everyone is concerned about the tone Senator Clinton’s and surrogates (whose mind must be conflicted at the difficult decisions that face anyone when the stakes are as high as as a Presidential primary campaign) and how they will impact the general election.

I am a bit amused at all these “Man lookout for what the Republican attack machine will do using a clip of A or B.” I’m ambivalent about that. I’d like to think that a large percent of Americans who will vote would be able to see through the cheap petty shots and repulsive Swiftboating, but “pros” claim that they won’t.

Polls are frightening when they indicate that the Swiftboating of absurd proportions “works” and when they reflect that the cheap attacks are effective and a substantial percentage of voters actually believe them.

I’m frankly more of an Obama supporter than a Hillary supporter, and am sympathetic to the charge that her scorched earth approach will hurt us in the general. (Still, that is her prerogative, and I think it is now hemmhoraging her support among supers). But I also agree that MSNBC has been out of line with Hillary (and then, after she kicked Shuster’s ass, overboard in the other direction save Olbermann).

Still, I can express those opinions in one post, not eight. And I don’t particularly think that expressing it AT ALL contributes to the conversation here. I just stopped subscribing to two of my favorite blogs (one pro Hillary, one pro Obama) because I don’t find bloggers’ scorched earth comments any more productive than Hillary’s. And I’m happy to do that to commenters here, too.