It all sounds very familiar.

While I understand that dealing with the fickle and unfair media is something that requires a good strategy, I also want to hear fair reporting on both sides of the story.  I don't want a media who is afraid to report the real news or offend the campaign (or administration) who has the most power.  It just reminds me too much of the years of biased reporting on the Bush administration -- and in the end, it's not good for anyone involved.

So the question is WHO is pushing these constant CDS narratives?  And WTH doesn't the Obama campaign tell them to sit down and shut up already?

If they can't bring themselves to reach out to constituencies like the Clinton voters when they actually need their votes, what will it be like when they perceive that they are no longer useful at all?

And of course this is a trait that starts at the top. If Obama wished to stop this sort of nonsense, he could do it in a trice. A few stern messages, delivered with obvious sincerity, would do the trick entirely.

One of the things that I find scariest about the prospect of an Obama Presidency is how far he deviates from the standard politician in his motivation to reach out to and please constituencies. He seems to set himself above his constituencies entirely, as if he is some kind of visionary guru who can see right when his constituencies can't. He has already turned his back on his progressive support. I have little doubt but that when the day comes that his AA support is no longer needed (or he so perceives it) he will turn his back on them. The most troubling aspect of what I see in him is that there appears to be only one "constituency" that he always seems to listen to: the group of people who sing his praises and attack viciously anyone who presumes to criticize him.

Hillary -- along with Bill -- has always been a more standard politician in this respect. She seeks to build coalitions, and has, and communicates, basic respect for the diverse set of constituencies that is required to do so. She understands instinctively the importance of bringing into the fold people who may have had a problem with her. I simply can't imagine that she would not have reached out to Obama and his camp if she had won the nomination -- and likewise for Bill.

The good thing about being tied to a set of constituencies is that it helps define how and where one leads. It brings a critical element of democracy and representation into one's decisions and policies.

It's dangerous to my mind.  The move to Chicago and his consistent Obamafests (not Democratic fests) to this eye looks like he wants to build a new party with himself as the founder.

Chuck Todd & his media ilk are not useful.  Nor are they worth a plugged nickel.  Todd seems to be famous for exactly what . . . ?

"How would nominee Clinton" treat Obama?

Who knows?  Who cares?  Go away, stooooopid pundit.  If you're going to just make up the krapola, at least produce interesting or funny or philosophical questions.  Try these:

How would pigs fly if they had wings?

How would Chuck Todd make a living if he also had to make sense?

Seems to me, given that there is no real proof or examples given of the two wings of the party working together for victory in November, what you have is axlrod doing what he does pretty well: pushing a false message.

It's the right message you're looking for.  The same way one would have liked to agree with a neocon pushing the message that bush wasn't going it alone...

And I would submit that while it might be offensive to Clinton supporters to see no inclusiveness at all from the Obama folks, what might even be worse is an Obama person pretending that something existed where clearly it has not.

To the Obama campaign, both Clintons are the gift that keeps on giving.  We saw how the Obama campaign made use of trumped-up charges of racism to their political advantage, and now that she is out of the race, the supporters, at least, continue to deride and attack in the hope that their vitriol will convince the powers-that-be that she is too toxic to be on the ticket.  Even as she has campaigned for him, every word she utters is parsed to reflect some hidden agenda, some secret plan to take over the convention and steal the nomination from Obama.

By acting like those annoying yappy dogs that want to sink their teeth into one's ankles, they hurt Obama by negating Clinton's ability to reach voters, but I suspect someone in the campaign has done a risk-benefit analysis and decided that there is more benefit in allowing the negativity than there is in tamping it down - especially if their ultimate goal is to "re-make" the Democratic party in a way that does not include the contribution and influence of the Clintons - or those who support them.

And the Obama camp knows this.

In order for them to shore up what was, in essence, a very shoddy "win" -- and that's not even including the DNC dragging him across the finish line --, they feel the need to continue marginalizing and denigrating their opponent, Hillary.

Problem is she's not the opponent anymore and the audience they believe they have for this type of discourse really doesn't exist outside of those already drinking the Kool-aid and weeping at every sight of The One.

I wonder how different the campaign would look now if Obama put even 1/4 of the effort into destroying McCain that they still put into destroying Bill and Hillary.  We'll never know, I suspect, because trashing Hillary is still the red meat that feeds those still supporting him.

His success during the primaries was based on three things: 1) big political rallies; 2) lots of changey-hopey speeches; and 3) CDS.

Two of the three aren't working so well anymore.  But CDS preceded the Obama phenomenon, and will no doubt survive it.  So now it's the well they keep going back to.

Is Todd (and Martin, couldn't believe his cr*p) hurting Obama?  Yes, but it's a strategy of desperation; if Obama can't hold on to his numbers, he's doomed.

If he were the great politician he and many supporters claim, he'd be able to choose another path -- real coalition building and real 'unity'.  If the CDS-infected in the media loved him more than they hate everything Clinton, they could actually support him rather than use him to feed the disease.

Or, did he say memebers ofthe Obama campaign have told me....

There is a lot of stupid out there when it comes to the Clintons and its very easy for otherwise intelligent people to get infected by it.