.......................SuperDelegates throw Obama under his own bus when it becomes clear that The Magic One can't win.

Keep in mind that Rezko hasn't hit the fan yet and after that:

Nadhmi Auchi ranks 279 on The World's Billionaires 2007 dude moved up almost a 100 slots from his ranking in 2006!

....is on deck. Standing by with proven financial ties to Rezko!

Perhaps Lord Kos, Duke Bowers and Daimyo Marshall will to the honorable thing, step down and atone with Seppuku?

I will cheerfully act as their kaishakunin....all metaphorically speaking of course. The Committee of Three are looking at the end of their ride as 'Big Men' in Left Blogistan if anything other than a landslide Obamagathon occurs and the probability of that happening is essentially....

Zero.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

this is funny tho, and of course not at all mentioned on tv today (all i see is Bosnia and Carville)--

WaPo-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

"... they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: "Hey, guys, can I come along?" And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate -- a list that included himself.

"I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who've actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out," he said.

To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them. ..."

at the end.

In the state Senate, Obama took credit for other's work and he's doing so above, according to amberglow. Not surprising, I suppose. But hey, Obama's lies are like flowers. Beautiful, beautiful flowers.

This one is even funnier:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/25/...

Edited to add: it's now on top of the rec list, by someone calling him/her/it/birdself "Hope08".

Hope on a rope!

......I, like many another progressive, am sick and fucking tired of the antics Sister BeezleBub and Senator SnakeOil think are so cute and winsome.

Important issues are at stake here as the commenter in my linked post below states so well, Jeralyn threatened to ban him because he was commenting too much....

Well, here goes I am announcing a new blogswarm. Check it out here:

I've heard enough; time for a real change!

....and don't forget to vote in the poll.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

That diarist (Blue Texan) is so full of Unity, Hope, and Post-Partisan Healing that I can barely take it....

Given that's how he feels about his fellow Democrats, I can't wait to see how he takes up Obama's call to make nice with Republicans.

Aravosis was stomping his little feetsies about this earlier in the week. It'll be conventional wisdom very, very soon.

I've always felt that she's going to take the blame for a loss in November, no matter who's the candidate. It could never be the fault of Obama.

Incidentally, I just heard this report on NPR on The Speech (the one from 2002). There are no videos or audio of it, the reporter who covered the rally didn't even mention Obama being there (Jesse Jackson was the main speaker), and the guy who wrote a biography of him said it wasn't a terribly risky thing to do at the time.

And yes, NPR calls a direct lie by Obama "technically incorrect." He wasn't engaged in a "high stakes" Senate Race in 2002 when he gave the speech, since he only declared in January 2003. Technically, my sweet Aunt Fanny. Wait! Look over here! Hillary got confused about an airplane!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

But that's very interesting. I also found it interesting that they mentioned that the 2004 Senate campaign relied on word of mouth of that speech to establish his anti-war stance and judgment, rather than, say, any new speeches.

Which might have actually been risky, at least before Jack Ryan imploded.

video of interview

courtesy of Unqualified offerings.

I think that if Obama felt at the time about his speech the way he feels now, then he would have mentioned it in the 2003 press release where he declared. He didn't.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Is that Clinton has been - out of all of the presidential candidates, including Edwards - one of the most outspoken about supporting the Democratic nominee. Even when questioning Obama's national security credentials, her campaign still said she preferred him to McCain as Commander in Cheif. The only thing she's doing that isn't supportive of the Golden One is fighting him for the nomination.

And the most damaging things to happen to Obama in the past few weeks are Wright and Rezko, two problems entirely of his own making that would exist whether Clinton was running or not.

Tell me, why is Obama so weak that fending off a challenge from someone who his supporters claim can't win will damage him against McCain, who is for the war, knows nothing about economics, and is running in a bad year for Republicans? It's not the calendar because Bill Clinton didn't clinch the nomination until at least June and he defeated a sitting president.

The truly damaging thing being done in this campaign is by Obama who is essentially swiftboating Hillary by repeatedly calling her a liar (even about things that are demonstrably true). As Riverdaughter explains, Swiftboating isn't damaging because you claim something untrue about your opponent, it's damaging because you deliberately undermine your opponent's credibility to hurt him or her on all issues. That's what makes it different from simply lying about your opponent. Clinton's numbers on "trustworthiness" are way down over the past six months - think that has anything to do with Obama repeatedly calling her a racist and a liar and saying she'll do anything to win (ironically all while he was playing the race card, lying and showing he'd do anything to win).

If Clinton is the nominee, Obama might be her VP simply to unify the party and I have no doubt that as a political matter she'll support him as the nominee, but after having been repeatedly called a liar, a racist, and now comparing her husband to Joseph McCarthy, I wouldn't blame her for personally feeling as though she wouldn't cross the street to put Obama out if he were on fire.

And also via Riverdaughter, I somehow missed Sean Wilentz March 11 follow up on Obama's fondness for calling every criticism "racism." Now that's something that's truly damaging to the Democratic Party (and it frustrates me that one of the things so many SDs seem to cite about their concerns in supporting Hillary is fear of alienating the AA vote without ever seeming to ask themselves why the Democratic party is in danger of losing the AA vote?). Wilentz article is here - http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i...

Isn't it funny how "Unity" means making nice with Republicans, but not fellow Democrats? Almost as bad as the desire to let people vote now being construed as the Clintons "wanting to destroy the party".

There is a good question here:

What the hell is the Clinton campaign 'theory of victory' at this point. A complete blowout in her favor in all the remaining primaries is vanishingly unlikely.

Really, is there a way Clinton can get the nomination other than by destroying Obama (or a least convincing the super-delegates he is destroyed)?

As for the venom spewing between the camps... The Clinton side has been spraying more bile for a while now as I see it. Yeah, the media gave Obama an unfair free-ride for a while and always slams Clinton when they can... that is unfair. But, it is not the Obama campaign's or supporter's fault. Mark Penn and the rest of the trainwreck which is the Clinton campaign certainly hasn't helped her case, and quite frankly, their inability to deal with it is major reason not to have confidence in Clinton as the nominee.

Stop guzzling the koolaid folks. And for goodness sake stop spitting all over everyone who disagrees with you candidate choice. (Yes, this is a pox on the 'children' in both houses.)

Once again, the question for Clinton supporters:
What is 'victory' in this primary and how do they plan to make it happen? I think there are good reasons to be wary.

PS: As a disclaimer, I am a late convert to the Obama camp. Krugman's assessment on healthcare and Obama playing into right-wing frames put me off (for good reason). However, these have somewhat been addressed while the Clinton campaign has shown itself to be exceedingly poorly run (especially in comparison to the novel and very well run Obama campaign). How a campaign is run does say a lot about the candidates ability to run the Executive... hell, more often than not the same people are involved.

when you're up against the nasty GOP. (which also connects to Obama's "unity" nonsense bec the GOP are the ones who always refuse to come together unless it's for their own benefit and not the peoples'.)

why not just let this all play out. The only person who can destroy Obama is Obama. Obama attacks Hillary all the while playing victim.

And really the recent swelling of Clinton's ranks has less to do with her attacks on Obama that genuine alarm over the character of the Obama campaign. The "strike" of her supporters at the Orange Frat House was a warning, a warning that was ignored. And the more I hear "she can't win, why doesn't she drop out" they worse I think of Obama. It stinks, just like the 48 state strategy stinks.

I feel very bad about this years Presidential race, it speaks badly for our party and our country. I think a chorus of "she must drop out" only makes every thing worse.

not least of which because again and again Democrats have proven the media and Obama's campaign wrong.

It's about a partisan Democrat vs. a "postpartisan" "unity" candidate who doesn't value traditional Democratic fights and basic values. That's very important in our 2-party system.

If we stand for helping all, and healthcare for all, and protecting SS, and improving the economy for all and fixing the things that the GOP breaks, etc--what does Obama stand for that he can get the GOP on board for that helps all--when they don't even believe that the govt should be helping or doing anything for all the people? It's really basic.

Lambert, you or anyone else here going to Eschonacon08?

sounds like a lot of fun, sorry I will have to miss it

It should be pretty obvious to folks by now, Obama can't win without superdelegates. If he had enough superdelegates he would be keeping his mouth shut and be focusing and McCain and sending out positive messages.

Instead it is a gutter-fight to the bottom. Ergo, Obama's camp knows they don't have enough superdelegates. Obama can't win unless he convinces enough supers to turn on Clinton or get her to drop out.

(I'm not saying Clinton's situation and strategy isn't much different, but everyone already knows that Clinton can't win without supers and some politics)

I find it amazing that no one is reporting this. You see table after table showing how many superdelegates are need in case A, B, C, D. But I think I'm right that Obama's camp must have pretty good idea they don't have enough superdelegates to win. (Yes, it could be they have to prevent FL & MI from counting and barring that they would be more confident)

I personally become less and less likely to want to vote for either of them at this point. "willing to do anything to win is a plus, not a minus" seems to be the mentality that has taken over.

You become what you seek to destroy. So much for the GOP being this evil monster, it appears more and more Dem supporters are willing to "win at all costs" and not hold their leaders accountable when it happens. I think it is a mistake to act like GOP, and Rove might have won this beautifully because in voter's minds there was once a distinct difference between sleazy, corrupt GOP. THe average voter probably can no longer make the distinction.

Seriously, that's ludicrous. Hillary could have brought out Wright the weekend before Iowa. Should could have brought it out the weekend before Super Tuesday I or Super Tuesday II. She brought out Rezko only after Obama cornered her in a debate.

The race card has been well established as emanating from the Obama _________ers. Obama talks about elevating the debate while at the same time his chief strategist says Hillary lacks character and is evil. Obama admits Hillary didn't send out the photo of Him in traditional Somali garb and a couple days later its in his darn stump that she did send it out.

Where is the Hillary "bile"? When the history books are written, Obama's campaign is gonna fair no better than Rove. Say one thing and do another. Or let your top aides do it for you.