After watching Hillary raise the primary victory and assassination of Bobby Kennedy and keeping up with the reaction to it, I have to say I, like Bobby Kennedy Jr., find her explanation more sensible than the chorus of outrage raised against her.  I still loathe Hillary, just not for this.

Her enthusiastic complicity in a profoundly illegal, deeply immoral and catastrophically unwise invasion of Iraq is more than enough reason to oppose her.  Such complicity's a thing worthy of outrage, worthy of disqualification from serious consideration.  Yet, somehow, this most unavoidable mark against her did nothing to keep her from being respectfully regarded as one of the "great candidates" vying for the Democratic nomination.  Complicity in the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands, in the displacement of millions more, in the subversion of the Constitution, the destruction of the Armed Services and economic ruin of the nation... these things are acceptable to the 'reality based community'... but a couple supposed inferences closer to bad taste than evil intention?  How. Dare. She.

Fascinating.

Hillary Clinton's claim that she is more worthy of the Democratic Nomination because she has the most popular votes is absurd.  

Hillary Clinton and her cohorts are trying to tell us that the popular vote is the best measure of the will of the rank and file of the Democratic Party. There are two basic problems with using the popular vote a metric of party support.

First, the primary in Michigan was a half baked mess that shouldn’t count for anything. If the same procedures were used in some foreign country no one would consider it a fair election.  Hillary beat uncommitted and picked up over 300,000 votes. So what? Obama and Edwards were not even on the ballot and the DNC, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards had all agreed that the primary would not count. No reasoning person could conclude that the MI primary was an accurate measure of the will of the voters in MI. But Hillary wants to count it as such. That’s absurd. If you give Obama credit for just 60% of the uncommitted vote in Michigan, then Hillary loses her popular vote advantage.  

Of course FL had similar issues though not as flagrant and given the current delegate counts not as significant.

For reason two make the flip.

For the final time tomorrow, I'll be going through my usual routine. A diary for all those who simply can't handle the stress of exit polls, streaming live results and painfully clueless cable insta-analysis.

Let me just start out by saying that I'm a huge Hillary Clinton supporter, I have been longer than almost anyone here.  Some of you are going to try to call me a 'concern troll' or whatever but you can't because I'm telling you not to.  

But lately, I'm starting to really doubt that there is any chance for Hillary to get this nomination.  Over the jump for the brave at heart.  

No kidding.  The title sounds like a joke right?  But taking a look at the NY Times this morning, I was greeted with this headline.  

Using New Math Clinton Contends She's Ahead

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Has she redefined the very laws of Nature to finally take a lead?  Sadly no.  Over the jump.

I understand that the New York Times printed a fairly scathing indictment of Hillary Clinton's campaign yesterday.  I think a few people might actually be influenced by that piece due to the nature of the argument they make.  What they were doing was, unfortunately, fairly unique.  They were speaking the truth about the campaign.

What has been far more common in the Times is that they push Hillary's talking points for her.  They have played a big role in shaping the narratives she needs to prolong her bid because the Times' stories are picked up on the wire and repeated all over the country.  

They do for Hillary what FOX does for GOP candidates.  But they've been doing it for one Democrat over another and civilized people aren't supposed to pull those tricks at all because they obscure truth on purpose.    

This morning's front-pager by Adam Nagourney should be laminated for the ages. http://www.nytimes.com/...

It is quintessential trollery.  It pushes the exact Concerns about Obama that the Clinton campaign needs to have on the front burner in order to have any argument at all.

I was a bit surprised to see so much activity here over the announcement of Rep. John Murtha's (PA-12) endorsement of Hillary Clinton.  I'm not sure if it's the lack of Hillary endorsements recently, disappointment over his choice, or some other factor.  I've posted several thoughts in the comments of the original diary, but thought I could kind of pull things together in my own (and my debut!) diary to see if I could give my view on exactly what kind of impact this has on the race.  Thoughts after the jump...

I, like many of you, am getting tired of watch Hillary become the new Joe Lieberman, by actively generating Op research  and talking points for the GOP, running the insult 40 states strategy, and actively campaining for McSame.

As Senator Obama's camapign spends the weekend in Chicago assessing his situation, everyone around here is playing campaign strategist, trying to figure out how to rebut the 3:00 AM ad, the Vice President cannard etc. Its time to go after Hillary Clinton on character, temperament, judgement and electability all in one.  We need a seriously re-written stump speech.  You need to slip off the long white gloves and take it to her on the issues.

Like many Democrats, I've been puzzled of late by Hillary Clinton's seemingly erratic, occasionally desperate, often shrill intemperate approach in the campaign in the last month after starting out the campaign in 2007 on a relatively high road.

Much has been made of the reasons why the Clinton campaign imploded, but in looking forward, many are now asking the question about what she has to gain by helping the Republicans rehearse attack lines on Obama as the presumptive nominee.

Yes, it's possible this is a genuinely-formed strategy about the best way to become President in 2008. But increasingly I'm wondering if Clinton might be tempted by the devil's bargain -- to position herself for 2012 by weakening the Democratic nominee in 2008. More on the flip.

Two years ago, I posted a diary on John McCain's naked political ambition extending to the point of the asburd accusation that the Clinton administration was responsible for North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons, even though Korea had acquired them five years into the Bush administration.

I was reminded of this in the context of the debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama last night on the subject of when, and whether, to negotiate with hostile foreign governments. I sort of wished at the time McCain was in on the conversation, so we could see exactly how illogical and dangerous a thinker he is in contrast to our two leading Democrats.

Follow the link to my original post above for full context, and more on the contrast to the Democrats on the flip.

If I'm wrong about this, fine, correct me please.  But isn't it true that Barack Obama has been leading the race for pledged delegates during this entire race?  

It seems to me that there has been a blatant effort by much of the party, with compliance in the media, to keep their thumb on the scale and preserve Hillary's appearance of being the natural choice for the nomination.

It's getting closer all the time.....

Senator Obama has the major momentum coming off his victory in South Carolina and the big Kennedy endorsements.

Gallup which only weeks ago had Obama 20 points down ha sthe race very close:

Clinton 43%
Obama   39%

Hell, even Stewart, Colbert and Olbermann don't give him any play.

There's been lots of buzz about the recent set of endorsements for Barack Obama.   They are impressive, and I respect many of the people who are formally behind his campaign.

What hasn't gotten any attention on these pages (at least recently) is the set of endorsements for Hillary Clinton.   I've posted them below (from her website).  It is a very long and diverse list, with plenty of unions, LGBT, African-American, Latino, Native American, and Asian-Americans behind it.  

I expect Barack Obama's list to also be long, impressive and diverse.

As an undecided voter, I don't know that these endorsements are really helping me to make up my mind.  What these endorsements do say is that Hillary Clinton can pull together a broad and diverse coalition of people to support her candidacy.   Barack Obama can do the same.  I am very happy with our field of candidates - they all have their flaws, but I will be enthusiastically supporting any of them in November.

REALITY CHECK FOR DEMOCRATS: WHY NOMINATE SOMEONE WHO CAN’T WIN?

In an election cycle where the "generic Democrat" leads in the national polls by a wide margin, the mainstream media has managed to orchestrate a scenario where the two anointed frontrunners for the Democratic nomination are persons who cannot win the general election.  Whether this is a result of nefarious intent (note Carl Rove chuckling with glee), or just a matter of the media relishing the unique story of a woman and an African-American being serious candidates for the presidency, the bottom line is that the Democrats appear poised to fumble away one of the most important elections in U.S. history.  This should be a matter of grave concern to anyone hoping to rectify the terrible mistakes and policies of the George W. Bush administration.

[Please see 'body' for full text of essay.]

In Today's Chicago Sun-Times Jesse Jackson points out that most of the Democratic candidates are ignoring Black voters and the issues that are important to them. Jesse Jackson says that the only candidate speaking out on poverty, reconstruction of New Orleans and the needs of America's poor is John Edwards. Ironically, Edwards is only polling about six percent of the Black vote in the most recent national polls. Here is the article from the Sun-Times:

"November 27, 2007
"JESSE JACKSON jjackson@rainbowpush.org
http://www.suntimes.com/...

"Can Democrats get the votes they need simply because they're not Republicans? You might think so in this presidential campaign. African-American and urban votes are critical to any Democratic victory. Bill Clinton won two terms without winning the most white votes. His margin was the overwhelming support of black voters. George Bush learned that lesson; that's why his campaigns spent so much effort suppressing the black vote in key states like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. His victory margin was the tally of votes suppressed or uncounted."