A similar scenario played out in '96 when he beat Dole.  Bill Clinton beat the media and the republicans twice.  That made his victories all the sweeter for me because I've hated big media for a long time, not just the last few years.  Before big media handed W to us as president, they were largely responsible for the despicable adulation of Reagan.  That did it for me and I've detested them ever since.

One of the ways the Clintons pissed off the Washington Establishment is that because they were genuine outsiders, they brought so many of their own people to Washington and didn't give the established Democratic machine its due.  That leads to a lot of resentment among people who thought they were next in line for such-and-such job and now some guy from Arkansas has it.

Obama is not only NOT Bill Clinton, he cannot successfully hijack Bill's "hope" narrative of the 90s.  It was unique to Bill's entire message, which included a southern and moderating tone appealing to independents at the time.  And if I recall, he was a very aggressive advocate...not all mushy inspiration.

What we see today is an attempt by Democratic elites and their allies in the progressive and liberal media to hijack the election process from the people.(All polling indicates Democrats are very happy with their Democratic candidates equally so this one sided Hillary attack is both unwarranted and not called for by the people)

 These media elites (and their cunning Republican allies) are pulling out all the stops to damage a Big Dem and force their own losing reality on the country and Democrats.  Therefore, only the people can repudiate this insanity.

  And if the Democratic electorate hasn't had enough of the losing strategies of the Washington/liberal/progressive/Ted Kennedy alliance, then they deserve the full responsibility (along with their followers/sheeple) for Democrats' ultimate loss... they and the highly susceptible and weak minded Obama version of the liberal/progressive movement pushes a mindless narrative as exemplified by Gov. Sebelius' impotent Democratic response to Bush's defiant SOU.  It was and is the Obama stump speech delivered without passion. Not only isn't it RFK or JFK, it is DOA .

Obama represents the impotent wing of the Democratic party...afraid to take the fight to the Republicans and challenge with passion and tenacity a hollow,cynical and mean conservative movement.  Democrats' don't deserve to win with their do gooder white guilt and Christian desire to turn the other cheek. A woman would be laughed off the stage with Obama's resume if she were running for President after one year in the Senate.  But liberals/progressives are so proud of their racial progressism.  Too bad they don't have the same reverence for female equality as they do for racial equality. Too bad they are not interested in moving beyond latent and virulent sexism but feel comfortable with the racism arguments of a vocal victimized minority. Too bad they are blind to a much larger victimized interest group that looks equal for all intents and purposes.  Are we embarrassed or uncomfortable with  acknowledging sexism but safe in the familiar cause against racism?

Not only has he supported Obama,savaged Hillary and lauded himself, but he has laughed at the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Only a fool could urge Democrats to keep Romney in the running and preserve the lethal snake that is Romney as a Republican nominee and threat. Only vanity could prompt a sane person to dismiss an attractive, rich, cunning and determined candidate who has a capacity for metamorphosis that mirrors the cynical hypocrisy of the party he represents. Only a moron could glibly diss a formidable force(backed by the Bush cartel) that if realized, would be a death sentence for progressive causes and a balanced Supreme Court. Has anyone forgotten how quickly narrative can change, especially when backed by the full force of the media and the dirty Republican machine?

Unfortunately, it is this type of overly sure, hypocritical ass who rolls his eyes at sexism and attacks Hillary with the same ferocity as he attacks Republicans.  It is this type of overly confident Democrat who must have laughed at Ronald Reagan.  It is this type of progressive sexist male we must confront to save the country from the conservative movement and the  Republicans who promote and implement it. Naturally, I hope the strong and determined non sexist men in our progressive movement will also make their voices heard.(hat tip Eriposte at theleftcoaster.com)  We must work  together aggressively to silence the forces of defeat.

  Sexist and tone deaf imbeciles without common sense come in all shapes and sizes and ideologies. They have a particular history of dooming Democrats.  When they put equal energy into demonizing Hillary and Bill Clinton as they do in laughing at a Mitt Romney (clearly a determined and successful man by most measures..), defeat is around the corner.

 Markos' sexist progressive screed along with the other progressives who echo it, coupled with a mind boggling intellectual dishonesty, do more to cloud our judgment about Mitt Romney than prepare us for the actual danger. (remember how shocked Markos was when those two special congressional elections he determined were competitive turned out to be Republican runaways?) We ignore the perils that we face and the pooh poohing by liberal elites and progressive blowhards, at our peril.

One piece is only mildly anti-Clinton, and gets in some decent points.

But the obsession is unbelievable.

Obama has managed to completely and convincingly assume the mantle of change.  Of course, he's vague enough to allow everyone to assume the change he represents is the change they themselves want.  It's a privilege to be able to watch a politician of his caliber operate.

I only thank God that she doesn't wear a skirt, they'd be calling her a "skirt".

Tom freaking Daschle.  Yes, it is pretty clear that Obama is the official candidate of the establishment of the Democratic party.

[Saddam's] a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

The other candidate, Senator Clinton, opposed the Levin Amendment and supported the AUMF.

As Ezra Klein wrote:

The issue isn't the issue -- about which Obama was correct -- it's his consistency on the issue. Barack Obama was right on Iraq, and Hillary Clinton was wrong. Obama could have made a couple more speeches, but there really wasn't much he could do to divert the course of the war as a lone Senator. By contrast, there was very much Hillary Clinton, and her husband, could have done to divert the war -- and all it would have taken was exactly what Obama did. A prescient, fiercely oppositional speech during the run-up to the invasion. Nor has Clinton, who routinely promises to end the war once in office, exercised political leadership in the Senate, using either her media power or parliamentary pull to sustain a brave stand against the conflict. Instead, she has spoken of her desire to end it and, in reality, gone along with the cowed, ineffectual approach of the Senate Democrats: Register opposition, vote against bills, eventually pass spending measures that continue the war.

That Senator Clinton is the establishment candidate is without doubt. Why would you suggest otherwise?

To argue that she isn't, in my view, is an intellectual fig leaf that gives Clinton an excuse for her fundamental lack of leadership and judgment on the war in Iraq...from her AUMF vote to the present day.

That's what this debate is really about.

Now who were the hoi polloi, the commoners and the poor wretches who gave Clinton all her super-delegates that supporters keep trotting out to count whenever she loses a primary?

Let's face it, there are a lot of people in high places that don't like the Clintons. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with economic issues that anyone has pointed out.

If Clinton's goals are consonant to the power brokers but they still don't like her that's either a compliment to her campaign to be so successful so far, or an insult to her as a person. If Clinton's goals are more proletarian than her betters then perhaps she should be out there sounding more like Edwards.

1 - you are quoting another blog ( a new one0 as a source.  They have no cred to be a core source.

2 - "establishment" in this context is merely a cover for the Kennedy Mass. based machine and when I pointed out the relatuionship I had Chicago thrown at me left and right.

The real deal with his endorsement is ground game organization and political cover for anyone else in DC to make a free choice.  He, Kerry and Leahy add enough DC gravitas that it effectively puts Obama on equal status with the Clintons.

I think it's good.  Now we can find out who our elected ones back and why without them having the excuse that they were being politically expedient.