either that, or Fineman's just plain lying. The last I heard, nothing had been decided about putting her name in nomination. I suspect this is just more of the Obama camp trying to create their own reality.

you cannot dismiss the possibility

I understood that Clinton was speaking Tuesday night

Donna Brazile raised the issue of Clinton not on the ballot in the WSJ on the record (saying basically Clinton shouldn't ask to be on the ballot because it was divisive, I'm paraphrasing). Then the NY Daily News had a leak that she wouldn't be on the ballot and now Fineman.

Sure, that could just be a coincidence, but after all the shit the Obama campaign shoveled at me through the media, I think it's more likely that they are pushing this angle.

As for Tuesday, I don't think it's been finalized, but I've read other reports of that date as well. But whether those are true reports or more "leaking", I have no idea. Tuesday will be the anniversary of women's suffrage and there's a parade scheduled in Denver by Clinton supporters as well as an Emily's List event. It would be kind of ironic, in a bitter way, for the party to celebrate women's suffrage on Tuesday and then have forced Clinton's name off the ballot on Thursday. Wouldn't surprise me at this point, they'll piss on anyone to achieve their vaunted "unity."

the same way that people "agreed" under Stalin-- by fiat, and if they objected they were shipped off to the Gulag.

That's what the Democratic Party's become under Obama, right?

On a related note, is anyone else concerned that the Democratic Party is becoming the new Republican Party (sans social conservatives)? Seems like every Country Club "let them eat cake" asshole I know has shifted from being a Republican to being an Obama supporter, taking their money and influence with them.

How can Hillary 'agree to' not having her name placed in nomination, while simultaneously 'not knowing her role?'

As to Bill's role, I recall it was to be kept at a distance during the campaign... of Al Gore.

This latest from Fineman seems designed to advance party division, based mostly on the fact that Obama's campaign continues its practice of remaining tight-lipped about details. I figure we'll see what transpires when it transpires.

And who will be the keynote speaker? In recent history, that spot's been held by a person who then went on to become the next Democratic nominee.

I've spent many a year with the capacity to criticize Democratic presidents while also defending them from attacks that arose from the GOP hate machine that were fueled by innuendo and rumor and playing off various biases. I fully expect that pattern to persist with any Democrat that gets elected to the White House in my lifetime, just as I expect my first choice for a nominee will never actually become the nominee, in the rest of my life.

So I certainly well understand cynicism. But it remains accompanied by a big dollop of skepticism about emanations from the Beltway pundit class.I may not be certain what specific agenda most of them have, but I'm pretty certain theirs rarely parallels mine.

If HRC knows her *role*, as long as she knows her *place*.

...when you kicked half of your own political party in the teeth and the other political party wants to destroy you, Mr. Obama.

well, now we know that Howard reads the New York Daily News. shame on you, Howard

mrs. campskunk used to work in the city, and she'd show up at work every day with her copy of the Daily News, while her boss would bring in the Wall Street Journal. of course, the Journal would sit unread on his desk as he read her Daily News.

Don't you mean Howard CONTRIBUTES to the Daily News? That story was debunked. Not to say it won't change in the future, but Hillary was on video saying specifically the opposite.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

so long as we STFU. If we try to bargain with our support because we haven't agreed to be silent, we're racists (or enabling racism or criminalizing a woman's right to choose). Even if we offer support but steadfastly refuse to STFU, we're divisive and bitter at the very least and perhaps something worse (like objectively pro-McCain).

How did the "post-partisan" approach to politics become "if you're not (unquestioningly) for us, you're against us?"

which turned me off when I finally accepted that Obama was really serious about doing nothing about accountability for Bush and Cheney malfeasance and misfeasance.

Funny how it was less passive and more aggressive when it came to lumping Clinton policies together with Bush-Cheney policies -- but then it eventually dawned on me that the policy positions have just been a smokescreen for the heart of the matter, the personality contest.

Too bad the country isn't like the Harvard Law Review -- they could elect a capable and effective managing editor to make sure the work got done effectively and on deadline.

to make sure the work got done effectively and on deadline."

Isn't this the argument for making Hillary VP?

and that's why they won't.

But Cheney has proven that a Vice President should not act as a Prime Minister because the Vice President is not accountable to the President (the VP cannot be fired), not accountable to the people (thanks to Jefferson and Burr, you can't split your ballot for President and Vice President), and not very accountable to Congress (appropriations run through the President, and impeachment does not work if 34 senators refuse to convict).

I loved this...almost like the beginning of a story book.

(Okay, minus the "and then, kids, mr. nastyboss stole mrs. campskunk's newspaper every single day.")

But, seriously, cute name, nice beginning.

The Hillary stuff? Isn't that how the Obama narrative goes (a la Gerard Baker and Lambert)--"Oh Mrs. Clinton doesn't want her name called and we're just trying to do what she wants, to make her feel happy and comfortable."

Sounds like the beginning of another story book.