Meanwhile, the buzz is on Obama and Bloomberg.  To me it's indicative of the pattern of flirtation that has gone on between the Obama campaign and the indies and Repubs of the world.  Bloomberg for VP?  Hagel for Defense?  What kind of adminstration is that?

Not that I necessarily think that would actually happen, but these ideas are floating around and they are grounded in how the Obama campaign has presented itself and its goals.  

The new talking point for our horrible crop of Senators is that they can't do anything because of deadlock (though I realize this point has been recycled over and over).  It comes from Hagel, it comes from Obama.  Well at least they agree on that - so why don't they DO SOMETHING?  I am so sick of our Senate being completely passive and rewarding itself on national TV for the insight that yes, they are completely passive.

Never trust anybody who makes that much money and defends their attemtps to do nothing.  It's ridiculous.  It's their fault, it's Bush's fault.  I wish we could banish the executive for a year just so we could force our Senators to do something.

I just wish Obama could say the same thing.

Problem is, I think she's right, but the whole electability argument for Obama is based on the singular idea that he has supporters that won't vote for Clinton.  And that Clinton's supporters will vote for him.

That his Independents are ready to say they were wrong about Bush but not ready to say they were wrong about Clinton.

So it would be impossible for him to ask his supporters to reconsider that decision.

If I agree with Clinton here I'm putting her at a disadvantage.

Obama disgusts me.  He doesn't care that he disgusts me as long as I vote for him like a good and loyal Democrat.

Three Questions:

1. Did she say what Oculus quoted above about Senator McCain "Certainly" already pass "The Commander-in-Chief Threshold"? (Which, by the way, is a new term one suspects her campaign Focus-Group tested before marketing.)

2. If she did, is that erased away by her comment tonight?

3. And I would like to ask respectfully because I think this Blog is a sane version of Taylor Marsh, i.e. all-Hillary, all the time:

Are you so sure that everyone who opposes her does so because they are bad, sexist, stupid, MSM dupes, etc.? Is it possible that Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill Clinton, are responsible for some of the negative opinions people have of her?

I know we all mis-remember, but her Bosnia story was pretty hard to reconcile with reality. I remember all the times I have faced sniper fire, zero, thank God, and I have never mis-remembered that. Why did she?

However, most people have probably been in situations where they have felt that they were judged too harshly - and sometimes WAY too harshly. The more salient question is whether the MSM, and members of the general public, are judging Hillary in a manner that is fair, harsh, or WAY too harsh - relative to her admitted mis-statements/mis-steps and alleged misconduct.

From an NBC report (the day before):

"At a time when Sen. Hillary Clinton is increasingly relying on superdelegates to vault her to the Democratic Party's nomination, a handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates are coming forward to say her campaign's tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good."

Link.

"BTD," your snark ("what a dastardly thing to say") indicates that this has been her general, stated, public position for some time, and therefore people are ridiculous for thinking Hillary is undermining Obama to the benefit of McCain. And that is a too unfounded presumption for your snark to work, and so it kind of doesn't. This is a welcome change from the recent Clinton rhetoric on the subject*.

Now, do I think Hillary wants Republicans to win? No. But do I think she wants to paint McCain as so great that only she (in her self-imagined greatness) can beat him? Yes, of course. But is she stupid enough not to understand the consequences of that tactic? No, I don't think so.

Obama can't make the same plea for two big reasons. Firstly, Obama doesn't even identify himself as a die-hard, true-blue Democrat. Secondly, to a large extent, he's hoping to get elected (or at least nominated) by GOP and Indie voters who have crossed-over to the Democratic Party, for the express purpose of voting for Obama. The loyalty of Obama, and those particular voters, is primarily invested in Obama rather than the Democratic Party.  

So basically, Clinton's plea for loyalty to the Democratic party is a two-fer: it reflects well on her because she reminds us that she and her voters are dyed-in-the-wool DEMOCRATS; it reflectly poorly on Obama because the same can't be said for him and many of his supporters.

"Please think through this decision," Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word "please." "It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country."

My issues are things like shutting down voting in MI/FL, taking Democratic voters for granted while playing to Republicans and Independents, throwing my main issue (healthcare) under the bus, the nagging belief that Obama's going to be another Carter, etc. etc., so that his election could very well mean another 20 years of Republican pres's.  In addition, I don't want another president who envisions himself a God.

Do you suppose that instead she's saying this because of the Gallup poll that just came out talking about party defections?

(Link in case you missed it the other day)