positivism and cohesion and to express it to the outside world. The world is beginning to fall apart at the seams in all the important areas and at such a crux of disintegrating (American) authority more crises could erupt.

a lot recently. There's that plus their new spin that Obama has to win all 4 contests on Tuesday.

If she still trails in delegates after Tuesday and doesn't drop out, I'll be convinced that she wants to run again in 4 years, not 8.

It's time for all of the former presidential candidates, Biden, Edwards, to endorse Barack Obama to unite the party.  What are the waiting for?  I have a feeling that Bill Clinton is still have some kind of power over them.

and the reason is simple. Obama's going to win North Carolna easily, with or without Edwards. If Edwards endorses Hillary and she goes on to lose NC (which I believe will be the case) his political stock will plummet.

But he is just not a very good political tactician. The only way I can see him really regaining any national political standing is by winning the Governorship of North Carolina, and that would appear to be at least 4 years away (NC's governor's race is also this fall, with term limited Mike Easley finished). Now, he's got young kids and a great woman for a partner whose time may be short, so the man deserves to live his life in a way that honors them.

Still, the whole Presidency-or-nothing (by which I mean no real role in organized politics at all) deal is strange. You'd think he'd want to at least bargain while his leverage was the highest to ensure that certain parts of his platform were explicitly promised by either Hillary or Barack, to ensure that at least something that his campaign tried to highlight and fight for would be adopted. I don't get it.

that after he dropped out of the pres. race he'd run for Governor. But filing just ended, and if a Democrat wins this fall(which is usually the case in NC) we can forget that from ever happening.

your "no disagreement here" is BS.

On the one hand, it seems to me, you want to be able to say that everything is too negative and assert that you have been a uniter, while on the other, you are both sometimes unapologetically nasty to Hillary and her candidacy, and unable, or perhaps merely unwilling, to see or admit to the hurtful and hateful nature of many of the comments directed against her here or on other blogs.

And please, do not cite another relatively benign Kos post and ask me if that is what I am talking about.

For goodness sakes, either you know exactly what I'm talking about, but won't admit it, or you just don't see what I'm talking about, which is not necessarily a better alternative.

I don't mean this as a personal attack on you, and so I hope it doesn't come off that way. I respect all you've done and RK, and enjoy the discussions I've been having here, but enough talking the talk on this negativity issue. How about walking the walk?  

for this.

nor an apologist for Clinton (although based on your question, it obviously seems that way to you).  All I ask for is a fair reading of the facts.

So, in answer to your question, I don't know what this means.On the one hand it can be read as a slimy suggestion that Obama really is a Muslim, but he is lying when he tells us he's not, but we just don't have the goods on him yet.

On the other, it can be read as just some really poor wording on Clinton's part.

I have no idea what was in Clinton's head when she said this. Do you KNOW?

So, when all is said and done, I take it at face value and think it means just what it says, nothing more and nothing less.

But, sure, if I already thought the worst of her, I'd probably interpret it in a bad way. But I like to think I'd be honest with myself and understand that I was doing so not because of any objective facts, but because of a specific personal bias that I brought to bear on those facts.

Without getting too philosophical about it, we all have our biases, and you certainly don't need to defend yours to mine. But I think it is somewhat inconsistent, if not disingenuous of you, to then say you agree that the tone of the campaign has become excessively negative.

and looking at it, it is clear, at least to me, that she was basically saying there was no truth to the Obama is a Muslim BS.

I can't believe Kroft even asked the question -- not once, but twice. He seemed to go out of his way to infer something from Clinton that wasn't there. I'm sure many will see it differently.

And I'm sure someone somewhere brought it up, but I just want to say, that the biggest problem with this entire "smear" is the implication that if Obama wer a Muslim that it would somehow make him unqualified for the presidency.

The whole thing is, frankly, offensive, and I wish the media would just leave it alone.

and agree. I don't think there's anything to it.

So that only leaves her despicable Bush/Giuliani-esque red phone advertisment, her red-faced "shame on you!" speech one day after a classy, subdued debate in Austin, and her insulting "Obama as messiah" sarcastic rant.

All in all she's having one heckuva week.  

...I completely disagree with you.  Given my belief that the Clinton campaign has been responsible for the overwhelming majority (90%+) of the negativity in this campaign (even disgracefully trying to turn Obama into the "black candidate") I believe I've been extremely restrained towards the Clinton campaign compared to many others in the blogosphere (e.g., see the comments on the Daily Kos thread about Hillary's Muslim remarks). I could give you my true feelings about the Clinton campaign's conduct, but this is a family blog after all so I'll refrain. Also, in general, "if you don't have anything nice to say..."

Aznew cannot accept the fact that Hillary has become the divider.  It's time to unite behind Barack Obama.

has attempted to make Obama the "black candidate."  They've said that red states/caucus states/young people/any state that didn't vote for Hillary is not important.  They've accused him of "plagiarism." They've essentially said that if he's elected, your kids aren't safe from terrorists.  And we're accused of being "negative?"  What a pathetic joke.

of why I switched from leaning Clinton to supporting Obama.  The arrogance and condescension of Camp Clinton knows no bounds.

of what I find frustrating about Obama.

Obama Supporters feel free to name call and use pejorative characterizations of Hillary Clinton and arguments on her behalf pretty freely, but get pretty bent out shape at the most gentle of criticism heading their way.

Not that I give a hoot about comment ratings, but why is it unproductive to point out when an argument in inconsistent? Why, if an argument is insulting ("a pathetic joke") is it unproductive to respond with humor that attempts to highlight that, rather than just hurling an insult back?

In fact, upon closer examination, you do not agree with Gov. Richardson. You don't think the campaign is too negative; You think the Clinton campaign is too negative. Fine with me if you have that opinion, but I fail to see why pointing that out is either arrogant or condescending.

make the same comment?  Let me make it clear to you, since apparently this is VERY difficult to understand:

I THINK THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN IS THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN NEGATIVE

Kapeech?

No need to shout.

I was quite content to leave it last night at we just disagree on the subject, but then you had to go and say that suggesting Obama was negative was a "pathetic joke." There was no call for it.

Then, when I point out that the problem is not that you think the Clinton campaign is negative, but that in your diary you suggest something completely different (that it is the campaign itself, not just one candidate, that has been negative), you say it is arrogant and condescending to point that out.

And now you YELL at me under the pretext that I HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD YOUR POSITION?

I think I was the only one in this discussion who did kaposch.

on ratings, or throw it out.

The arrogance and condescension of Camp Clinton knows no bounds.

Seriously, coming from you?  But in the tradition of the blind squirrel, you do correctly get at one thing - it's the camps, more than the candidates, that are so off-putting this go round.  I don't think Hillary is nearly as screechy and convinced of her own entitlement as many of her supporters seem to be.  And I don't think that Obama is nearly as childish and naive as many of his supporters seem to be.  So when this is over, and a significant percentage of Democrats don't exactly rush to the aid of the winning candidate, it won't be the fault of the candidates, but of their supporters.

ADMITTED they are throwing the "kitchen sink" at Obama.

NY Times:

After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama's candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a "kitchen sink" fusillade against Mr. Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum.

the Clinton campaign.  I can't remember the last time I saw a cluster)(@*# that bad.  What I am defending is the notion that both camps have behaved in really appalling ways, and that there is no high ground from which to be judging.

towards Clintons has been in response to actions by the Clinton campaign.

e.g. phony controversies over non-existent issues like the "present votes" in Illinois.  The soft-sell race baiting.  And the political meddling in contests in New Hampshire and Nevada (e.g. in New Hampshire harassing poll monitors and in Nevada some under-handed tactics at the caucuses in Clark County -- plus the boneheaded law suit).  

The attacks by a former president and party leader too were unprecedented and ill-advised.  The baseless email attacks circulated by Clinton adviser Ann Lewis with charges of antisemitism in advance of Feb. 5th -- and other contests -- are also just kind of sad.

The flip-flops over the Michigan and Florida contests also have also been equal parts ineffective, and divisive.

In Iowa or New Hampshire I don't remember Obama engaging in dirty politics.  The closest thing to a real nasty hit was his NAFTA flier in Ohio, which was a shot in the gut, but still above the belt.

The fact that we've even had party elders like Kennedy and Leahy weighing in when they did was in no small measure due to what they viewed as "cheap shots" by the Clinton campaign.  Even Richardson's statement on Face the Nation I think puts the issue in context (he plays the statesman and doesn't pick side, but his meaning is clear enough when he talks about how the candidate with the most delegates after March 4th becoming the party nominee.  In real terms it will be very difficult for Clinton to close a 100 delegate gap with the vote in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont -- in order to just get near parity she would need to win each of these contests with about a 65-35 split).

Some of this is just in the nature of a long political campaign -- things can devolve into silly season.  Partisans on either side can get nasty.  But I think it's a testament to the type of campaigns that the two candidates have run that one candidate finds a substantial increase in baseline support since December, while the other has seen support decrease.

but he was definitely interviewing for the VP job; so much so that Bob Schieffer gave him a gentle tweaking over it.

She obviously does not want to run in 2012 or 2016.

There will be retribution a plenty if she gets the blame for an unnesessary loss in november