"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

At some point, the press has to begin discussing Obama's burn rate. He essentially needs to outspend Clinton 3-1 or 4-1 to turnaround his campaign at this point (as he did in Wisconsin). Otherwise, Obama will lose the entire rust belt corridor (2-1 could not buy him Ohio or Texas).

On SNL the actor who portrayed Obama was white and the Obamabots raised a stink over that.

And I don't get it.

I do like him.  I like what he has achieved legislatively and in his campaign.  I love that he is growing the left side of the aisle.  Bringing in folk who don't agree with me on all things.

But I hear over and over again that the Left is a big circular firing squad, shooting each other for not being pure enough.  And I strongly feel that is going on here with folk calling him a Republican, or Republican lite.  And I do also see it on the orange site, too.  Running Hillary folk out of town. crosses eyes

And I get too hot, myself.  I dislike hearing him called a hypocrite (or some variant thereof) for not being perfect.  I know he and his supporters fall short.  But many of us are trying to aim higher.  And he has passed up several opportunities to be nasty, and been a bigger person. But it feels like those are never noticed here.  Only any data that confirms that he's an awful Republican seems to filter through.

And, I don't know if I can say this clearly, but I'm going to try.  I have heard many times a truly awful right wing type say to a fellow Leftie.  "You dislike <insert stereotype here>.  That makes you the same as us that you call <insert accurate synonym for bigot>."

And so, when Obama or his surrogates starts bringing up things about Hillary, there is this weird feeling of deja vu.  "Ha, ha! SEE!! Obama is the same as any other politician! NEGATIVE!  Ha, ha!"

And no, he isn't.  He is trying to be more negative now.  Yeps, that's what's going on.  And he's not doing it particularly well.  It's not his strength, and it's not his instinct.

He is a politician, and he is trying to win.  Frankly, I don't think that this will work well for him. I do trust his judgement and his temperament.  But I keep hearing a cycle between "He isn't perfect, therefore he is awful" and "He's a hypocrite" in the comments.  And really, I just don't get it. I think he's inspiring, and he makes me feel good about America.  And I don't do that often during these dark days. And if we are going to grow the party, we need allies.  Folk that don't agree with us all the way, but that will help lots of the time.

I don't know that I have a point, I guess.  I just wish that things would be a little calmer and more reasonable.  I wish that folk that I like would at least play nicer sometimes.

Does that sound right? I don't imagine that sits well here.

[Puerto Rico will] change the voting process from 8 caucuses to a primary with voting places in all 1,800+ barrios in Puerto Rico's 78 municipalities. This is done in light of the hundreds of thousands of Democrats expected to turn out on June 1, a late date in which we would have originally expected a pro-forma vote with low turnout.

The monster comment was childish, petulant, and definitely amateurish.  I don't see it as a "negative attack" in the political sense -- it doesn't prompt some damaging media debate about whether Hillary is really a monster.  It damages no one except the speaker and the principal (in this case Obama).  I kind of feel sorry for Obama on this one because it's just cringe inducing and, whatever you think of him, he clearly prides himself on trying to keep his own emotions in check and not being a hothead.  And if we're being honest, this incident is pure gold for the Clinton camp.

What's more interesting about this is that it's a window into the fact that the high emotions we see in various blog posts (on both sides) exist within the campaigns as well.  I have no doubt this is currently the case within both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.  

In December, Obama said he had "been very clear to my campaign. I do not want to see research that is involved in trying to tear people down personally. If I find out that somebody is doing that, they will be fired. And I have been absolutely crystal clear about this, and I have been clear about this for a very long time."

LINK

My reaction to his reaction:

OK. I understand you're a comedian, Larry, and I love your work, really I do.  But you need to set up a premise for this argument.  I've read it twice, and I get what you're saying (you're abundantly clear), but you never specify WHY you're saying it!  You don't like her war vote?  You don't like the ad itself?  You just flat out don't like "that woman" (as you so sensitively put it)?