Which was evident enough when daughter Chelsea Clinton was caught trying to campaign at a Connecticut polling place. …

…the campaign urged all Hillary supporters to be vigilant for signs of fraud and to duly report them — to Clinton's own campaign instead actual electoral authorities.

Like anything else the Clintons do, this was a setup to make the results debatable. Clinton's internal polls reportedly were suggesting that her campaign wasn't likely to do all that well — as Tuesday's results later showed.

It's a loser's tactic and, combined with a Clintonian willingness to violate electoral norms, it doesn't paint a pretty picture. It's part of a larger picture of a willingness to cut corners on elections as long as it serves the senator's purpose.

If Hillary is so concerned about electoral law irregularities, the first place she ought to go looking for them is in her own campaign.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcon...

[Comments are good]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_ada...

I'll be voting on the issues this year and who I think will be the best candidate.

No — Clinton has been in every primary and caucus, unlike Giuliani.

In fact, that cheatin' witch even put her name on the ballot in Michigan even though the election there was held too early, against Dem Party rules.

* * *

“could have found a more unflattering photo”

Shaun has done that before; he used the Drudge photo, if I recall correctly. There's nothing wrong with this photo or the one he used at that time.

* * *

“The forces of Obama seem not to have any idea how to win without also trying to tear down and destroy their opponent and castigating her supporters. … if you hate Clinton thats your problem, because she hasnt done anything to deserve it.”

It's the Clinton campaign that has been aggressive and low toward Obama, not the opposite; Clinton has done plenty to deserve criticism and contempt. Not just this year but of course back in the 1990s.

Hill has handlers, and it is THEY, not any journalist (even the guy who accurately called Chelsea's handling being pimped, which is merely the youthful way of saying 'being used') who is in control of the spin.

Funny how a woman who decries sexism benefits from it whenever she does not get her way- from the crying incident to the faux 'I'm a mom' BS over Chelsea, to this pity poor me act. Imagine any male candidate doing the same and not being ridiculed out of the race.

And I won't even get into their not so subtle attempts at niggerizing Obama.

Your comingling of “fairness and accuracy” with what you perceive to be an anti-Clinton bias is precious.

I cannot speak for other co-bloggers, but I call them as I see them. This has included numerous posts noting that until very recently Obama was failing to put flesh on the bones of his hope-and-change mantra, as well as posts in praise of McCain. Bottom line: Catagorizing me is hopeless.

Hillary Clinton, with the help of a man I consider to be the finest politician of the modern age and the best campaign managers that money can buy, has crafted a kind of campaign that to her horror many Democrats and Independents simply are not buying into in 2008.

That campaign, from the tears on command to the ongoing flip-flopping on the Iraq war, would have being doing spectacularly if it weren't for the fact that she has a challenger who would seem to represent everything that she does not. That candidate just happens to be Barack Obama.

As I noted in a reply to Jammer, you need to ask the Clinton campaign why things are so screwed up. Shooting the messenger won't get you any answers.

Your response?

It's unfortunate you chose this picture. There's a huge difference between pity and tears of nostalgia and I think you know better so I'm going to assume the picture was for effect. I'll let Kathleen Hall Jamieson explain it to you.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: … .. One of the things I think that happens with many of these visual depictions is that the people who are producing them are trying to attach what scholars call negative affect to Hillary Clinton. And I know that's an odd concept for non-academics.

BILL MOYERS: Negative?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Affect. To the extent that you have negative feelings, have basic affect when you see something. If I can attach that to something, I can make you feel uneasy about it. I can increase the likelihood that you're going to vote against Hillary Clinton. So we know, for example, that if I show you a picture of someone who's smiling and feels comfortable … ..

BILL MOYERS: Right.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: You think more positively of the person, even if you don't know who the person is. Then I show you a scary picture, an off-putting picture. You react negatively. You respond negatively. I can increase the likelihood that you'll say you'll vote against that person even if you know nothing about them. … ..

Shooting the messenger will not get you one bit closer to The Promised Land. You should be addressing your national discourse issues with the campaigns, not a blogger who is merely conveying the situation as it exists.

Perhaps the former President would be more useful to his spouse's campaign just working the backroom reminding these people of that.

Then, as long as HRC can keep the regular delegate count within 100 and make sure she takes the last couple of primaries (through flexing th organizational muscle into those states) to claim “momentum shift”, she can dipense with these upstart Obamacons.

Donna Brazile better watch her mouth. What other party needs her losing touch…….the Paulloons?

I look to Bill Maher as the kind of Obama supporter I respect and admire. He supports Obama but says: if you hate Clinton thats your problem, because she hasnt done anything to deserve it. That kind of comment helps to advance our national discourse, and the hopes of all Dems in the fall.