Nice piece on the Clinton mud machine.

Also, during one of the debates last year, when asked, Obama said that Hillary would probably be on anyone's shortlist of VP running mates. And I think Hillary concurred (Obama would be on anyone's list of VP running mates). I think that's all that is necessary when discussing running mates in a campaign. Besides if anyone doesn't believe that Hillary hasn't already promised (or has indicated to) one of the superdelegates a slot as VP was born yesterday. My guess would be Strickland of OH- he was a really strong supporter of Hill's while she was in OH and he does have a lot of Republican support and appeals to Christians.

Anyway, as far as Obama turning Hillary's idea into a race issue- I don't get that at all. What exactly did Obama say in his response which would lead you to believe was turning this into a racial slur? Obama's response was appropriate given that Hillary is just playing politics with the idea of him being VP, hoping to draw his supporters away.

But yr claim is ludicrous. Bill, many Hill surrogates, incl. Ferraro, have implicitly and explicitly made race an issue, wink, nod, and to call that spade a spade is racebaiting. You don't even know the term, then.

Which is sort of what Davebo was saying.

Wow, a spelling error. Much better than addressing the point.

The spelling error is irrelevant.

I just think it's fair to take into consideration the fact that a person calls themselves a democrat, but don't have any idea what the word progressive means, and intends to vote Republican if their preferred democrat doesn't win the nomination.

I'm not condemning you at all. But those are facts certainly relevant when assessing your claims.

For the same reason I take with a grain of salt scientific lectures about our flat earth.

Sinbad is referenced in the main article.

Obama is a lowlife race baiter. See the media matters link, and then Axelrod's repeating of that smear on the CNN link. You can't get lower than that. NO, that is not “ordinary” debate, or ordinary tactics. It's low and disgusting.

The idea that Obama isn't engaged in major mudslinging is delusional.

Davebo:

Wow, a spelling error. Much better than addressing the point.

Stop w the games. Hill is the old fashioned mud slinger, at least on this planet. In your orbit, in full eclipse of SD or DLS?, therein lies the rub.

I'm not a “progessive” – whatever that is. I'm a Democrat.</blockqoute>

I get it, a Democrat who has no idea what the term “progessive”<sic> means, or how to spell it for that matter.

Thanks, that cleared up a lot of things.

I think someone who relies on Sinbad as a “refutation” of Clinton's foreign policy experience is the interstellar idiocy champion on this board (particularly when the article linked raises doubts about his recollections).

So, you've added a moon to your system. Hilarious. And Kanzeon- is he one rock in or out from your sun?

I'm not a “progessive” – whatever that is. I'm a Democrat.

Voting McCain over Obama isn't betraying Democrats. Obama has no commitment to Democratic principles – he has proposed the weakest health care plan imaginable and backed it up with Republican talking points. He has demonstrated no political will – when things get tough, Obama votes “present.” I wish Clinton's platform were left of where it is, but I know that she will stand strong, and she will win legislative battles.

I'd rather have a competent, moderate Republican working with a Democratic Congress than a divisive, identity politics driven train-wreck Democrat who will accomplish nothing and generate a backlash. Feel free to disagree, but I haven't noticed any “progressives” left in the race.

The media matters link has everything to do with Obama:

“Axelrod said the comment by Ferraro, coupled with Clinton's “own inexplicable unwillingness” to deny that Obama was a Muslim during a recent interview, was part of “an insidious pattern that needs to be addressed.”"

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/ferr…

This garbage about Clinton refusing to disavow the Muslim rumours is one of the lowest, most dishonest smears of the campaign, as media matters documents – and Axelrod doesn't only repeat it, he amplifies it. Or, is Axelrod not part of Obama's campaign now?

Obama is a smear merchant. I will not vote for him, under any circumstances.

(By the way, if you actually read the links, you will have learned that the garb photo showed up on freerepublic.com several days before Drudge posted it. Now, what is more likely – that Republican muckraker Drudge got it from freerepublic or one of freerepublic's posters, or that Clinton's team picked it up from freerepublic and forwared it to Drudge?)

It that's a dog whistle then apparantly my dog has gone deaf. In fact of all the complaints from Hillary's supporters, the claim that this:

“[OBAMA] I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” he told reporters.

constitutes dog whistle sexism is just pathetic. The kind of pretzel logic it takes to jump to that conclusion could write an entire Steely Dan album.

And Jammer makes a good point. Historically speaking this primary has been pretty tame.

So, I will say what I have been posting for many months and which has been thoroughly ignored: lighten up. Dont burn bridges, dont become hateful (particularly if you support the man of “hope and unity”), dont tell me you will betray all progressives and vote McCain if your person doesnt prevail, dont tell me this has been a negative, nasty, smearing campaign when it hasnt been, and quit making everything a racial (or sexist) issue. Each side, Clinton or Obama, will need the other to prevail this fall. If we all act like spoiled children and cannot come together at the convention, we will have NO ONE but ourselves to blame. Remember: “its all about the Supreme Court stupid.”